PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES HOUSE OF COMMONS OFFICIAL REPORT GENERAL COMMITTEES

Public Bill Committee

FIRE SAFETY BILL

First Sitting

Thursday 25 June 2020

(Morning)

CONTENTS Programme motion agreed to. Written evidence (Reporting to the House) motion agreed to. Motion to sit in private agreed to. Examination of witnesses. Adjourned till this day at Two o’clock.

PBC (Bill 121) 2019 - 2021 No proofs can be supplied. Corrections that Members suggest for the final version of the report should be clearly marked in a copy of the report—not telephoned—and must be received in the Editor’s Room, House of Commons,

not later than

Monday 29 June 2020

© Parliamentary Copyright House of Commons 2020 This publication may be reproduced under the terms of the Open Parliament licence, which is published at www.parliament.uk/site-information/copyright/. 1 Public Bill Committee 25 JUNE 2020 Fire Safety Bill 2

The Committee consisted of the following Members:

Chairs: †SIR GARY STREETER,GRAHAM STRINGER

† Bacon, Gareth (Orpington) (Con) † Malthouse, Kit (Minister for Crime and Policing) † Britcliffe, Sara (Hyndburn) (Con) † Moore, Damien (Southport) (Con) † Buck, Ms Karen (Westminster North) (Lab) † Saxby, Selaine (North Devon) (Con) Clark, Feryal (Enfield North) (Lab) † Simmonds, David (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) † Cooper, Daisy (St Albans) (LD) (Con) † Slaughter, Andy (Hammersmith) (Lab) † Duffield, Rosie (Canterbury) (Lab) † Tomlinson, Michael (Lord Commissioner of Her † Eshalomi, Florence (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op) Majesty’s Treasury) Hunt, Jane (Loughborough) (Con) † Jones, Sarah (Croydon Central) (Lab) Yohanna Sallberg, Committee Clerk † Lewer, Andrew (Northampton South) (Con) † Longhi, Marco (Dudley North) (Con) † attended the Committee

Witnesses

Dan Daly, Lead on Protection and Building Safety Matters, National Fire Chiefs Council

Penny Pender, Deputy Team Leader of the NFCC’s Building Safety Programme Team, National Fire Chiefs Council

Dennis Davis, Vice Chair, Fire Safety Federation

James Carpenter, Head of Fire Safety, L&Q Group

Adrian Dobson, Executive Director for Professional Services, Royal Institute of British Architects

Matt Wrack, General Secretary, Fire Brigades Union 3 Public Bill Committee HOUSE OF COMMONS Fire Safety Bill 4 Public Bill Committee Examination of Witnesses 11.34 am Thursday 25 June 2020 Dan Daly and Penny Pender gave evidence. (Morning) The Chair: Thank you for coming to give evidence. Please begin by introducing yourself for the record. [SIR GARY STREETER in the Chair] Dan Daly: My name is Dan Daly. I am an assistant Fire Safety Bill commissioner, currently seconded to the National Fire Chiefs Council. Previously I had 32 years’ service with 11.30 am the London fire brigade. I have been the assistant commissioner for fire safety in London for the past four The Chair: Welcome,colleagues,to Public Bill Committee years, until 1 June. proceedings on the Fire Safety Bill. We are now sitting in public and the proceedings are being broadcast. Penny Pender: Good morning. I am Penny Pender. I Before we begin, I have a few preliminary announcements. work at the National Fire Chiefs Council, where I am Please switch electronic devices to silent. Tea and coffee the deputy team leader for the building safety programme. are not allowed during sittings and, given the temperature I have been there for the past two or three years. outside, jackets or other items of clothing may be removed. Q1 The Chair: Thank you. We have a number of Today, we will first consider the programme motion questions for you, but do either of you wish to make an on the amendment paper. We will then consider a opening statement first? motion to enable the reporting of written evidence for Dan Daly: We welcome the Bill and the clarifications publication and a motion to allow us to deliberate in that it seeks to provide. We are very keen that those private about our questions before the ordinary evidence clarifications should work not just for us as regulators sessions. I hope we can take those matters formally, and enforcers but for the people who have day-to-day without debate. responsibility for building safety, and for those people Ordered, who live in, work in and visit those buildings, so that That— they understand what is required to keep them safe and (1) the Committee shall (in addition to its first meeting at their duties. 11.30am on Thursday 25 June) meet at 2.00pm on Thursday 25 June; The Chair: I should explain that you have Members (2) the Committee shall hear oral evidence in accordance with the following Table: of Parliament in front of you and behind you, because we are socially distanced and the room is not quite big TABLE enough to allow us all to sit around the horseshoe table. We will start the questioning with Sarah Jones, who Date Time Witness leads on this issue for the Labour party. Thursday 25 June Until no later than The National Fire 12.00pm Chiefs Council Q2 Sarah Jones (Croydon Central) (Lab): Thank you Thursday 25 June Until no later than The Fire Sector for coming today, and thank you for your written 12.30pm Federation; the L&Q Group evidence. I think that our amendments cover a lot of the points that you are concerned about. I want to jump Thursday 25 June Until no later than The Fire Brigades 1.00pm Union; The Royal straight to enforcement. How are we going to do this, Institute of British because there are a lot of new responsibilities and not Architects that many qualified people to do the work? It will take us a while to get all these risk assessments, given the (3) the proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) increasing number of buildings. How do you think we be brought to a conclusion at 5.00pm on Thursday 25 June. should implement this? What comes first and what —(Kit Malthouse.) should we prioritise? How do we make it work? Resolved, Dan Daly: We have had a debate on whether these are That, subject to the discretion of the Chair, any written evidence received by the Committee shall be reported to the clarifications or new aspects, and we have settled on House for publication.—(Kit Malthouse.) them being clarifications. I am fine with that, but it Resolved, suggests to us that the buildings to which they apply are those buildings that are currently there. I do not think That, at this and any subsequent meeting at which oral evidence is to be heard, the Committee shall sit in private until the witnesses that the Bill is attempting to grow the range of buildings are admitted.—(Kit Malthouse.) that come within scope. We are seeking some clarification on certain definitions, to ensure that there is no creep in The Chair: Copies of written evidence that the Committee the scope of what the Bill is intended to do. receives will be sent to Committee members by email. With regard to the pressures on fire and rescue services, We will now go into private session to discuss the lines the onus is on us to maintain skills and competencies in of questioning. I hope it will not take us long as we will the sector, and we have a body of work to do in order to be eating into witness time. move forward and deliver that. Where we have a preference for the service, it is that we bring the legislation forward 11.31 am as it is, all together at one time, rather than putting in The Committee deliberated in private. arbitrary height restrictions and things like that. I know 5 Public Bill Committee 25 JUNE 2020 Fire Safety Bill 6 that you will hear from industry that there will be local authority councillor is how those inspections can pressures on competent persons to provide extendable be undertaken to satisfy the responsible person that the assessments, and things like that. fire risk is being appropriately managed. I think that what we can offer is a risk-based approach For example, if you have leaseholders in a block of to help the people with those responsibilities manage flats owned by a local authority that is responsible, the ask in a way that targets the highest risk buildings what the leaseholder does within the property that may first. There was a model that we used—in the London create risk to others may not be something to which the fire brigade we termed it the Croydon model, as you local authority can readily gain access. I am interested may be aware—which was to help those large portfolio in this point about how the different pieces of legislation holders understand where we expect them to apply their interact. Do you have a view on how we might collectively initial assessments with the new legislation. I think we move towards a resolution of that problem? can adopt a similar approach here. I think that will help Dan Daly: Wetalked earlier about how the clarifications to ease the pressure across the board. Certainly, as they in this Bill are really useful in terms of ironing out some are clarifications, it would imply that the legislation of the overlaps we have seen that have caused us difficulties applies to those buildings already, so it does not appear before, both in holding people to account, and in people’s that now is the time to bring in arbitrary height allocations. understanding of their duties. This is a bit of legislation that underpins a self-regulatory Q3 Sarah Jones: You mentioned maintaining skills regime, and we must ensure that at the end of this and competencies. Who do we need? What is your view we have something that makes it very clear to those of fire risk assessors, and should we have a system people what their responsibilities are. It must also help whereby they are accredited in some way? residents and leaseholders to understand what they can Dan Daly: I would certainly welcome a register for rightly expect from the people with day-to-dayresponsibility fire risk assessors and third-party accreditation for that. for the safety of their buildings. That is the sort of thing In a similar way, we are working towards a competency that we are working closely with Home Office colleagues standard for fire inspection officers within the fire service. on. The Bill has been presented as it is today, but I know That is a bit of the work that the building safety team is we have taken some assurances in the background that doing at the moment. Certainly, the service will be we will work together on providing secondary legislation working with them over the coming years to develop the and guidance to pick up those areas where we might skills within their own workforce to achieve that. Again, still seek further clarification, to ensure that it is absolutely with the new building regulator, we are looking to bring clear to those people who it most directly affects day to in a level of competence to interact with more complex day. buildings. Q6 Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD): I have two interlinked Q4 Sarah Jones: How do you think the other pieces issues. One is about the number of assessors needed; we of legislation that are coming forward sit together? We have received some evidence that suggests there are have the building safety Bill, for example. One of the around 400 third-party registered fire risk assessors and concerns that have been raised with us is that we might potentially around 400 APQC independent assessors, have all these pieces of legislation that do not necessarily but there is nobody putting a number on the assessors speak to each other in the same language and do not tie that might be needed. up. It has been suggested that at the end of all this we The first question is whether you have any estimates, need to bring it all together into one Bill. What is your because we know roughly where we are at the moment view on whether that is a risk and whether we can try to and where we need to get to. I was pleased to hear you overcome that? say that you would welcome a register of assessors, but Penny Pender: That certainly picks up on some of the the interlinked issue is how we train those people. We points we have made in our submission about ensuring have had differing evidence. Some suggests there should that the different pieces of legislation speak clearly to be a fast-track training, or different levels of assessment, each other. The first example is the term “building”: and other evidence suggests that we should not have one concern we had was that if it was not clearly fast-track training because it can lead to problems. I defined, the default setting would be to refer to the would welcome your views on both questions: how definition in the Building Act 1984, which is referred to many people do we need overall, and does there need to in the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005. be comprehensive training for everybody, or would you take a differentiated view? Picking up on Dan’s point from earlier, that would be a much wider definition than the scope of the fire safety Dan Daly: I do not think I can give you a number on order currently covers, so that is the type of thing we are how many we need overall, because there is a bit of hoping to iron out. We just want to ensure that there are work to be done before that. This speaks back to the opportunities, maybe through secondary legislation or risk-based approach. If we look at the work we are in guidance, for those types of thing to be spelled out doing with the building safety regulator and the ideas clearly,to ensure that all the different pieces are interpreted going forward about the level of competency to interact clearly when they all come together in the future. with buildings of different complexity and risk, we could apply a similar staged approach to how we look at the buildings to which the legislation needs to be Q5 David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) applied. Picking up those most at risk will allow time (Con): Apologies to the witnesses for dancing around for training to come through, and development of people behind you in this way. Picking up on the point about to support the wider piece of work, while ensuring that qualified persons and the inspection process, one issue the effort is focused on the buildings that we would see that has been raised a good deal in my experience as a as highest risk. 7 Public Bill Committee HOUSE OF COMMONS Fire Safety Bill 8

There is further work that we need to do as a service is, a mixture of materials—the way in which the cladding overall on understanding what risk looks like. We have a is applied, and indeed the way it is modified: whether historical risk matrix that informs the regularity with there are breaches and offences in that way. Do you which we inspect buildings; that was based on good agree that that is the purpose, and do you think that the evidence at the time, but we have a richer understanding Bill will enable that to happen? of risk now. We understand vulnerabilities, behaviours Dan Daly: Yes. This issue, particularly if we talk and lifestyles that have an equal impact on the likelihood about external wall systems—which encompasses insulation of fire, and therefore the settings that those people may and fixing everything, as you have suggested—has been be living in. It helps us understand risk in a totally debated for some time. In August 2016, I attended an different way—understanding that this is not just our incident in your constituency that you will be very opportunity to fix high-rise living but is about the wider familiar with. I was in my old role with the London Fire built environment. It is an opportunity to understand Brigade at the time, and we sent a letter to registered risk in a much more holistic way and ensure we are landlords to advise them to look at what was on the applying more rigorous inspections to those higher-risk outside of their buildings. We debated for some time premises, and an appropriate level of inspection to whether that letter could go further and suggest enforcement those lower down the risk register, so to speak. action, but it eventually became an advice note because we were unable to bottom out clearly what that legal Q7 Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab): I had a advice should be. I think the clarifications we are seeking couple of questions, mainly for Mr Daly. Could I just will make it much clearer that external wall systems are clarify something from your opening statement? Is it covered. your view that this Bill does not add in new types of premises or new responsibilities but is simply clarifying Q11 Andy Slaughter: So you think enforcement will what should already be happening? follow from this, and responsibilities will lie squarely Dan Daly: That is certainly my understanding. with the owner or manager of the building. Dan Daly: Absolutely. It is for the property owner. Q8 Andy Slaughter: Therefore, do you think the attempt in clause 1 to specifically include building structure, external walls and common parts goes far enough? We Q12 Gareth Bacon (Orpington) (Con): Central to the will be debating amendments this afternoon, some of Bill is the issue of the responsible person, but since the which have been supported by the fire brigade, which 2005 fire safety order was introduced, the identity of obviously you have had a distinguished career with. the responsible person has become more complex than One is to say that when defining “common parts”, it at first sight it perhaps should be. It could be the owner would be better to include all parts of a building except of a building, a tenant management organisation, or an private dwellings. Do you think that would be a helpful individual. I know from my previous involvement with amendment? the London Fire Brigade that that can actually be quite a problem for any fire and rescue service. Do you think Dan Daly: Absolutely. The concerns we have and the there are ways in which that could be clarified—if not clarifications we are seeking are shared in the submission now, perhaps in secondary legislation or in the Bill that from the National Fire Chiefs Council. There is no is likely to come through from the Ministry of Housing, intent to apply this legislation inadvertently to buildings Communities and Local Government later? Would it be inappropriately, but we should be very clear that parts helpful for that to be clarified? that are used in common between properties would be subject to the order. I do not think that creeps any A secondary question relates to the skills, qualification further forward what buildings are in scope, but it and training of responsible people—this is very like makes very clear those areas to which it does apply. Ms Cooper’s question from earlier—and how they can carry out fire risk assessments. Do you think that there is sufficient detail at present to satisfy the requirements? Q9 Andy Slaughter: So if we are engaged in a clarification Dan Daly: In terms of the training, there is work to exercise, it would be better that we do so properly. do. The industry will point to some difficulties with Because there are different definitions of what “common capacity and volume. That is why I would urge a risk-based parts” means, we should ensure that they are defined as approach, and that we manage that here and now. The every part of a building that is not within the individual clarification of where responsibilities lie and what those tenant or leaseholder’s domain. responsibilities are is hugely important in this legislation Dan Daly: Yes, absolutely. As I say, we are working to aid some of that training, so that it is very clear what very well with colleagues on those clarifications and on the requirements are on individuals and on the competent commitments to getting those definitions in. Our reason persons who will be providing advice. Again, it is hugely for repeating to you our concerns about those clarifications important that this speaks to those people. and commitments is not to suggest that work is not Our experience in enforcement terms is that there are going forward; it is partly to place it on record that we those who seek to comply; there are those who seek to think those issues are hugely important to the success of comply, but who fail to understand what is required of this Bill and its application. them; and then there are those who actively seek to dodge the legislation and work their way around it. Q10 Andy Slaughter: It has been said that the purpose What we want to do is close the loopholes for that of this Bill is specifically directed against those parts of secondary group, and to make it absolutely clear for the the structure that are liable to be dangerous, obviously others who are doing their best to understand that the with a view towards cladding. That itself covers a multitude guidance and legislation support their understanding of of sins: different types of cladding, compositing—that their duties. 9 Public Bill Committee 25 JUNE 2020 Fire Safety Bill 10

Marco Longhi (Dudley North) (Con): My question recommendations. I think that is entirely appropriate, comes from somebody who was a local government because I think people expect the Bill to pick up the elected member for some 21 years, who has sat on lessons and the learning from that, so we absolutely planning committees and dealt with building regulations, support that. Can you remind me of the second point? and someone who has built properties and who is currently a landlord. I would like to ask a more specific question when we are considering risk. Much of what you talk Sarah Jones: The insurance issue—if you take a about is about taking a risk-based approach. In your risk-based approach, what about all the people who do written submissions, you talk about how you would like not have the right pieces of paper? greater resources and investment to be put into the Dan Daly: Our role is to be fully engaged with enforcement side of things. Clearly, that is something insurers and those who support people to invest in and for the Government to respond to. take out mortgages on properties, to give them an Do you agree that construction and sign-off are understanding of what that risk-based approach means. potentially the points at which there could be the greatest If we are able to convince those partners that the risk of errors or non-compliance, either wittingly or lower-risk buildings present a lesser risk, that should, unwittingly? Do you also agree that even after a structure hopefully, help with some of those challenges. has been signed off—whether it is by building control or At the moment, when we have a slightly less finessed by the local council—the time soon afterwards is still a version of what risk looks like in these buildings, it is point of high risk, because that is when door furniture very hard for people in those circumstances to make can be changed, carpets can be fitted and all sorts of accurate judgments and assessments. Part of our role is other things can happen that might have meant that the to support that, and I think the risk-based approach structure did not pass the certification in the first instance? that we propose will help with some of that, because we Do you agree that perhaps a more dynamic monitoring will absolutely identify those more high-risk buildings, role is required over how new buildings are being addressed put resources towards them and focus the remediation from within existing structures—therefore, no extra body efforts on them. By design, that would allocate other is particularly needed because we are approving buildings buildings to a lower threshold of risk. as we speak—but that looking at the timeframes might be a useful thing to do? The Chair: Penny, did you want to come in at all on Dan Daly: I suppose that speaks more to the work that question? that is being done around building safety—the Bill that is coming forward and the work on designing a new Penny Pender: No, thank you. building safety regime. We cannot escape the findings of the Dame Judith Hackitt review.They were very damning The Chair: Thank you. That brings us to the end of about the existing system, and they speak to why we this panel. Wehave only three minutes left before 12 o’clock. find ourselves with the built environment that we do Thank you so much to both of you for answering our and the challenges that that poses—not just for RPs in questions this morning; it has been extremely helpful. managing it, but for residents who have to live in the We will now conclude this part of the sitting and move buildings, for us as enforcers and for firefighters in on to the next. Thank you for being with us. terms of their safety when they attend the buildings. We are fully engaged in that process. It is equally important that we get this legislation Examination of Witnesses absolutely right so that during occupation, the duties of whoever is responsible, day to day, for the fire safety in those buildings is very, very clear and it does not allow 11.58 am people to pass the buck—so that it is absolutely clear Dennis Davis and James Carpenter gave evidence. who is responsible, and they will be held accountable. That is what we are seeking. Q14 The Chair: Good morning. I welcome Mr Davis Q13 Sarah Jones: First, we suggested putting the and Mr Carpenter, from the Fire Sector Federation and recommendations from the Grenfell phase 1 inquiry the L&Q Group respectively. As we begin, could you into the Bill, and I am interested in your view on that. please introduce yourselves for the record? Perhaps Secondly, this is not really covered by any of the Mr Carpenter should go first, because we can see you. amendments, but a concern raised by several people is James Carpenter: I am James Carpenter, head of fire that with the EWS1 form, we have seen a huge complication safety at L&Q. If you are not aware, L&Q Group is a of people not being not being able to sell their flat and large housing provider in London, and we currently being stuck because they do not have the right piece of manage more than 110,000 homes. I have been in the paper. If we implement this legislation and take a housing sector since 2007. Prior to that, I was a firefighter risk-based approach, it will be a long time before everybody in the Royal Air Force. We are also, as a group, involved has their piece of paper that says that they have had a with and an early adopter of the building safety programme, fire risk assessment. How do we prevent that from and we are a strong supporter of the brief on fire safety creating a massive insurance problem, with people stuck across the built environment, to improve existing buildings because they do not have the right piece of paper, while but also new buildings coming out of construction. Our the piece of paper that they had before is out of date aim is to support that continuous improvement in fire because there is new legislation? safety to avoid tragedies such as those we have seen. Dan Daly: On the first point, we suggest that the Bill In offering evidence, we hope to ensure that amendments should be amended to make sure that it has the flexibility to the Bill are realistic and, more importantly, achievable to encompass the Grenfell phase 1 and phase 2 inquiry for those who manage buildings and for residents, so 11 Public Bill Committee HOUSE OF COMMONS Fire Safety Bill 12 that they understand what those challenges are and, of understanding about fire and its behaviour, and ultimately, so that we can give reassurance about the about people and how they behave, before going into safety of people’s homes. the complexities and granularity of buildings themselves. You could have a fire engineer—I am a qualified fire Q15 The Chair: Thank you. Mr Davis, you may engineer—who specialises in a particular area. You introduce yourself, and I think you have a short opening might have someone working offshore, in the radiation statement. industry or on high-rise buildings. You cannot take one Dennis Davis: Thank you. I am Dennis Davis, the simple snapshot and say, “Oh, he or she is qualified as executive officer of the Fire Sector Federation, which is such and therefore is able to develop himself or herself a not-for-profit non-government organisation. We are into all these areas.” an organisation of organisations, so our membership Secondly, many of these things are not mandated, in comprises professional bodies, trade associations, unions terms of qualification. You can become qualified, but and commercial enterprises. Our collective work is really when it comes to applications in the real world, often to improve public fire safety. We work as a group, and I there is no specific legislation that says, “You must use lead work around competency and fire risk assessment. one of these people.” Because of the need for flexibility, We, like many others, have been working for a long the legislation has to ensure that it asks for competent period to try to improve overall competencies—our people and, on that basis, you become reliant on a work predates the tragedy of the Grenfell Tower fire—and definition of what is competent. If we can pass through most recently we have been working with the Government that, we can start to understand how difficult these and others to try to improve fire risk assessor competency issues can become. across the board. We, too, welcome the Bill and look Most of what we do in more complex environments forward to its guidance, but we have concerns about involves a team-based assessment, rather than an individual definitions and clarity,and concerns about the implications one. We are talking about fire risk assessment or fire of taking it forward in practice. engineering. An individual may be capable of handling a project, but if that project evolves and becomes bigger The Chair: Thank you. We have a number of questions and more complex, you add more skills and colleagues, for you from Members of Parliament on the Committee. and there is more team-based working. That has to be We will start with Sarah Jones, who leads for the Labour applied through the life of the building. The built stock party on this matter. is the difficult bit. New buildings should be well regulated, but once a building is occupied and used, it becomes a different environment again. Q16 Sarah Jones: Mr Davis, you are a fire engineer and have a master’s degree, so you are enormously well qualified. Can you talk us through your model of what The Chair: Mr Davis, thank you for that. We have good looks like in fire risk assessors, fire engineers and a lot of questions to get through in the next 25 minutes. the whole landscape of how we ensure we have enough That was an excellent and comprehensive answer, but I competent fire risk assessors and a proper system to would be grateful if we could have slightly more concise implement the Bill? answers. Mr Carpenter, one of our amendments is about how James Carpenter: I think the key point is around the definition of responsible persons should not include access and, as you mentioned, doors. With residential leaseholders. One issue that has been raised with us is housing, a lot of buildings might be fairly straightforward how you implement a Bill when you are looking at a in their basic design. The complexities come with the building in its totality and, as a freeholder, you have a various management arrangements, lease agreements responsibility to look, for example, at doors that might and so on. belong to the flat owner rather than you. How on earth The biggest question and challenge for housing providers can you do that? How do you know if changes are made is one of access. We cannot have it, we do not have or things happen when parts of the building are not in it—there is no right of access. With tenants, we might your control? How does that work? be able to go to court and get injunctions to gain access Dennis Davis: The first thing to say is that the built to a home, but with leases, that challenge becomes even environment—the part we are concerned with—is very more difficult. It is their private space and we cannot complex. Buildings, of course, are infinitely variable, touch it. When it comes to self-closers and checking from a small single-storey dwelling to a block of flats on inside doors, it is optional and voluntary for the leaseholder top of a commercial development that has got car to listen or to comply with what we are asking. That is a parking, leisure activities and so on. So the environment big concern. you are looking at is complex, but fire risk in particular As we submitted in the evidence, in my view and in is holistic. By that, I mean it is about the way people that of others, it would be useful if the law would allow interact with the building, the building itself, the structures leaseholders to be held responsible for their actions. and the way the whole process is put together. One big That could allow building owners some leverage in issue that often arises is that when the way you design, getting leaseholders to co-operate. Also, if we got to construct and build—the professional leadership in the that final point, action could be taken directly against process—is transferred on to the ground, and more them by enforcing authorities, which would solve the importantly into the life of the building, you find that challenge that there has been in housing for the last things you thought had been constructed, developed 13 years or so. and managed in a certain way are not. The first point I would like to make, therefore, is that Q17 David Simmonds: My question draws out something in trying to look at the competence of individuals, you that was touched on in the previous response. What are first trying to ensure that there is a common platform powers do responsible persons need in order to be able 13 Public Bill Committee 25 JUNE 2020 Fire Safety Bill 14 discharge these duties? If the answer is that there are no and it has the additional problem that the EWS1 form powers that would allow them to discharge those duties and the process to be gone through effectively stops any in practice, do you have a view about what else needs to sale or movement during that time. Are you aware of be done to make the powers real? those problems, and how can you see them being resolved? From personal experience, I refer to the example of a James Carpenter: L&Q currently has 191 buildings structure that has been signed off by building control— that are over 18 metres, and we estimate at the moment an independent contractor of the contractor who has that those buildings will cost in excess of £450 million built the structure—but, when occupying the building, to resolve, which may take up to 10 years. The G15, as a the local authority discovers that the fire door has been wider group of housing providers in London, has over installed against a false ceiling so that it is, in effect, not 1,100 buildings, and the estimated cost could be as high providing any fire safety at all. One would only know as £6.8 billion for those buildings. I appreciate that that by taking the whole thing down and finding that there are extreme challenges with buildings. that was the case. Such intrusive activity is a significant step into leaseholders’ property. Does the accountable On the point about sales, I think it is really important individual need powers, or does something else around that the insurance industry, which seemed to be holding building control need to be done to change this situation? up the EWS1 forms being completed, works with mortgage lenders to try to open the market again, to allow at least James Carpenter: Ultimately, if there was a way of one of those problems to be resolved. If the building transferring ownership of a leaseholder’sproperty through insurance covered the cladding, would mortgage lenders legislation so that it is no longer theirs but the building be happier to lend, on the basis that their money is not owner’s, that could solve the problem, because it is now at risk, because it is covered by the wider building our door and not theirs. I do not know whether that is insurance? possible, but that could be something to look into. Other than that, I am not sure. If leaseholders, or The situation of leaseholder and mortgage prisoners, whoever it is, have a responsibility to ensure that something as they have been referred to in the press, is extremely is there, safe and how it should be, they have a duty to unfortunate, and I do not think that that is right at all. ensure that that continues and must not make any People should be able to buy and sell their homes changes to jeopardise that. That is where I think the law regardless of whether the walls have a different material needs to be able to hold multiple people responsible, as on them. It is right that we all work towards the end opposed to just a single building owner. While I appreciate goal of making sure all those buildings are safe. We can that having one person in control of everything would look at the numbers for how much money it will cost to make things a lot easier, realistically, I do not think that resolve some of these buildings, but we must deal with it that is possible. by risk. It has to be about safety risk, where we have Dennis Davis: It is quite a difficult one. Again, it is concerns with lower-rise buildings that might be able to worth remembering that there is another Bill, which will move if we can solve the cladding issue by just issuing a take some of those powers and is about trying to ensure certificate. We need to keep focusing on safety risk. We that a building is maintained as well as constructed to a have to continue working with and lobbying mortgage standard. Some of that legislative power may exist lenders, with the Government, to make sure those measures within those requirements. We picked up the point do not hold up the lending process and stop people about common doors in our submission, because it is moving. an issue. It needs to be very clear that the responsible Dennis Davis: As a first answer, we are very much person has access and can control those elements in the aware of these issues, and I think that comes out in our same way that they can control the fire safety systems— evidence. The clarity that we are seeking is around alarms or detectors—within a dwelling. Clarity in that definitions, for some of the reasons that have been area would be helpful; there is no doubt about that. touched on. External walls are a team event, as I have made clear. Therefore, it is about scaling part of this The Chair: Can you see us all right, Mr Davis? Are process—how many people are available to undertake you watching this? the sort of area of cover that we are dealing with. The Dennis Davis: Yes, I am watching. impact assessment suggests that it is a very large number of properties, rather than just the over 18 metres. Q18 Andy Slaughter: I think there is quite a lot of support for this Bill. The issue is whether what it is On the example of over 18 metres,where the Government trying to achieve is clear enough and how it will be has funded the schemes of remediation, you can see how enforced. It is already clear that, where landlords are progress can be made. Equally,even with funds, dedication trying to do remedial work, that is highly problematic, and teams, it is a relatively slow process. We are three first because it is confusing what types of building it years on and the National Audit Office is saying we are applies to—what sort of height and what sort of getting there. The issue is how we manage it. As materials—and secondly because there is prioritisation. Mr Carpenter said, it is about managing the process through prioritisation of the risk. We are working with For example, a building that is mainly brick but has the Government, hopefully through a new task-and-finish some detailing made from aluminium composite material group, to try to move that forward in a positive way. or high-pressure laminate will have a much lower priority than one that has complete cladding. Also, there just There has to be due diligence from the responsible are not the people there to carry out the enforcement. person to make sure this is happening, but it is worth For example, a social landlord—and social landlords remembering that a lot of these people are in relatively are much better than private landlords, in my experience— low-risk low-rise buildings, which are now within the that is not L&Q is telling occupants of a particular scope. We need a process to manage that that is very building in my constituency that it might take four open and transparent, so that tenants know they are years for this to be done. That is problematic in itself, safe. We can work on that together. 15 Public Bill Committee HOUSE OF COMMONS Fire Safety Bill 16

The EWS1 form has created its own problem. It was are you saying that they need one day’s training or two intended originally for high rises, but it is now being years’ training? What is the gap? If you could explain it, used to free up the whole mortgage market. The problem that would be helpful. that we see with that is that you get unqualified assessors I also have a quick question for Mr Carpenter,following signing off forms just so that the market can move. Risk up on your last point. What do you think is the fairest assessors have found it difficult to get indemnity cover. way of managing the costs? I say that as an MP with We have spoken to the insurance world about that as a constituents who are being asked to pay 20 grand or trade body—our people have contacted them—and the more as an up-front, one-off cost, as well as having people who want that level of insurance can get it. You their service charges increased sixfold. Some of them are dealing with a broad spectrum of risk, and we need are trapped financially because they cannot fight, and to get the elephant down to bitesize chunks. they have no mechanism to raise the money that is needed to pay for the remedial work. So that is a Q19 Andy Slaughter: I am persuaded that you understand question for each of you, quickly. what the problem is, but who will solve it, given that Dennis Davis: It is difficult to give you a very quick there are so many interests involved? It is unacceptable answer. There could be 50,000 people who call themselves to expect people to wait 10 years before they can sell risk assessors. Some of them will be employed by a their flat, apart from anything else. Who will resolve it? company specific to their premises and will help to Will it be a joint industry initiative? Does it need maintain the integrity of that company’s building facility Government intervention? Who are you looking at to etc. They will be trained, maybe on a week’s course and do this? You have explained the problem, which we are maybe in particular areas, and that will be their skill all familiar with, but I do not see the solution there. base and they will do that. The fire safety order, when it was brought in, was The Chair: Mr Davis, do you have a solution for us? deliberately intended to be applied by individuals if Dennis Davis: I think the solution, Chairman, is they so wished. Part of the phrasing, I think, at the time shared work between those responsible for the buildings; was that it was not intended by the Government to be a the owners, like L&Q; those who are actually applying consultants charter. The inference from that is that you the skills, techniques and competences; the enforcers; should be able to apply a lot of common sense, and the and the Government. As I understand it, the initiative Government published a very detailed series of guides that is being created by the Home Office to try to work to assist in that. this process through will do that. Where and when the So at one level you need no qualification; you can do result of that will be seen, and how much and who this yourself, provided that the premises are simple. At pays—I am afraid I cannot answer that. the other end of the spectrum, you certainly would need degree-level education—level 4 and above—to be able Q20 The Chair: Thank you. Mr Carpenter, do you to apply the standards to complex buildings. In addition have a quick comment on the follow-up question? Is to that, you might need a high level of granularity, as I there a solution to anything? have said, in a particular system. That might be the James Carpenter: With that particular issue, I do not installation—that is, the cladding system—or the fire know what the answer is. I think there needs to be an alarm system. understanding. The key is to separate the two points. This spectrum is very wide. The problem, as we Resolving the mortgage lending issue should be looked foresee it, is that there are people going around who say at completely separately to solving the cladding issue. that they are fire risk assessors, but they do not have a Separating them completely would solve the concerns qualification. They have not attended any form of course, that have been raised with leaseholders. But we still training and so on, yet they purport to offer this service. need to appreciate that the sums of money involved in Our worry is that the public are then placed in a remediating buildings are very expensive and it will take situation where they think that they have received good time. There is no quick solution to finding either the advice, but they may not have done. There is certainly money for it or the skilled people to do it. But I think anecdotal evidence of that sort of application. the answer is to take mortgage lending and view it James Carpenter: One of our asks is that we want to completely separately. How to do that I am not quite be able to reassure housing association residents that sure, but to take the risk of cladding away from lending they will not need to foot the bill for these works. would be the right thing to do. Obviously, there is the £1 billion building safety fund at the moment, but that is predicated on where the viability The Chair: Thank you. We have time for two more of the owners may be threatened by funding the works questions, which will be asked by Daisy Cooper followed themselves, and it will involve submitting a business by Karen Buck, and then the Minister may want to case and so on as to why they would be at risk without come in quickly at the end. support. We are currently assessing our position. However, it Q21 Daisy Cooper: This question is to Mr Davis. In would be unlikely that large associations such as L&Q your written evidence, you talked about the standard of would be eligible under this particular scheme, and risk assessor training being “infinitely variable” and those that are would then have to notify the Regulator said that only some people may be “competent”. Could of Social Housing, which may in turn result in a downgrade you expand on that and explain what the lowest end of of their viability. We are working jointly with the G15 being competent is, compared with the highest end, in on this. Neither our leaseholders nor tenants should order that we can understand what you are saying? For pay the price for systemic issues in relation to building people at the lowest end of being qualified or competent, safety. We need to exhaust all possible options to claim 17 Public Bill Committee 25 JUNE 2020 Fire Safety Bill 18 the costs, or to get those that were responsible to pay for In addition, there are difficulties in any case for everyone, those things.Failing that, and in the absence of Government because people work and so on. Therefore, access outside funding, we will have no choice but to consider those normal working hours can often be the norm if you are legal obligations that are set out in leases with residents. trying to visit inside someone’sdwelling. You can understand However, that is the last point. We have not done it with why those arrangements have to be made, but it is a the buildings that we have remediated; we have not done serious issue for those seeking to maintain systems—there it with leaseholders, but it is there as the last resort. is absolutely no doubt about that.

Q22 Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab): I The Chair: I believe we are not allowed to go beyond want to return to the issue of access, because I feel that 12.30 pm by the programme motion, but the Minister the Government underestimated fairly consistently the has a quick point to make. complexities of access, be it in respect of fire doors or the issue of retrofitting sprinklers. There were local authorities that wanted to retrofit sprinklers, and even The Minister for Crime and Policing (Kit Malthouse): set aside money, but were unable to do so because of I was just going to try to draw out some of the complexities this issue of uncertainty of access. Could you two give of access, not just for fitting, but for maintenance. Just us an idea of what you feel to be the scale of the to clarify, the way the Bill is commenced will have problem? significant effects. I draw the Committee’s attention to the fact that one thing we have done is to convene this It was widely believed that leaseholders would want task and finish group, which Mr Davis referred to, with to co-operate, for example, after the Lakanal fire, yet the various bodies, not least the NFCC and the Fire lawyers were saying that as many as one in three simply Sector Federation on it, to devise a recommendation to did not and would not. So can you give us an idea about the Home Office as to how the Bill should be commenced. the scale of the problem and the complexities? In London, I know we have an amendment on commencement this there are particular issues with things such as the overseas afternoon, but that is going to be our method of making ownership of property, which makes it difficult to track sure we get it right. the true owners of properties. Can you also comment on why enforcement is difficult, for example, for housing associations and local government, in terms of the cost The Chair: Thank you, that is very helpful. and the length of time it takes to take people to court? Gentlemen, thank you very much indeed. We have now run out of time. Thank you, Mr Carpenter and The Chair: Mr Carpenter, for some fairly concise Mr Davis for excellent answers. The Committee is very answers, if you will, please. grateful. We must move on to our last set of witnesses. James Carpenter: On the challenge, we have got more than 100,000 homes and there are tenants in a lot of Examination of Witnesses those. The issue of access is not just in relation to leaseholders; we also have issues with tenants, where Adrian Dobson and Matt Wrack gave evidence. they do not want to help us to meet those demands. With leases, we have a separate issue. It is not just about 12.29 pm inspecting; we can also have challenges where we want The Chair: This session can last until 1 pm. Beginning to make improvements to buildings, but they are objected with you, Mr Dobson, would our witnesses kindly to by residents, because they do not want sprinklers in introduce themselves for the record? If you would like their home or a fire alarm system. We may then manage to say a few words up front, now is the time to do so. to put a fire alarm system in someone’s home, and it is linked to the building to raise warning to others, and Adrian Dobson: Thank you very much, Chair. My they unscrew detector heads and so on. So the challenge name is Adrian Dobson and I am the executive director is a huge and, as a landlord, there is very little power we for professional services at the Royal Institute of British can take without going through a lengthy and costly Architects where, broadly, I look after educational and court process—often the costs of that are not recoverable. practice standards. I also support the work of RIBA’s That is the challenge, but I point out that that is not all expert advisory group on fire safety. tenants and all leaseholders. Obviously, we do get people Matt Wrack: I am Matt Wrack, the general secretary who co-operate and understand, but there are also of the Fire Brigades Union, which represents the vast people who don’t want you accessing their home. majority of serving fire officers across the UK. I signed up as a firefighter in the London Fire Brigade in 1983 Q23 Ms Buck: Is that a significant minority, and we and have served as general secretary since 2005. Our are not just talking about this being very rare? approach to the Bill is that we broadly support it. However, we have some concerns about the need for a James Carpenter: Access is a significant problem for more joined-up approach on the whole question of the building owners to manage—it is not small in any sense. fire safety regime. It is not all tenants who cause those issues, but this is a significant challenge for landlords. In that regard, I represent particularly fire inspecting officers, a specialist group within the fire and rescue service. I thank them for their feedback on their views The Chair: A quick answer from you, Mr Davis. on the Bill. The concerns come down to issues about Dennis Davis: I am very sorry but I cannot give you a implementation, and therefore about investment. For scale on this, which is what you asked for. The anecdotal example, the impact assessment is based in our view on evidence certainly is that there are tenants, whether a very rough and ready calculation based on the current leaseholders or not, who do not like you to have access. regime. However, in our view and that of our members, 19 Public Bill Committee HOUSE OF COMMONS Fire Safety Bill 20 that regime is not fit for purpose. That is demonstrated “responsible person”, but the Building Safety Bill talks very clearly by some major failings, most notably the about an “accountable person” and a “building safety Grenfell Tower fire. manager”. What would be the lines of communication Look, for example, at the specialist roles within the between those roles? Are they fulfilled by the same fire and rescue service. Between 2011 and 2020, we have person? There is a risk there. seen a 19% reduction in the number of watch managers, Dame Judith Hackitt has been a prime driver of the a 23% reduction in the number of station managers, and content of the Building Safety Bill. She talks a lot about a 20% reduction in the number of fire and rescue service “the golden thread”. We are aware that the quality of staff overall. If we take the number of inspectors, we see information handed over at the end of construction inadequate record keeping by the relevant Department, work is often poor. If the fire service is looking at which is currently the Home Office. Most recently, it evacuation plans and wants to know what materials reported that in England some 951 fire and rescue staff have been used in the building, that information is not are eligible to carry out fire safety audits. If we look as readily available as it should be. We would like an back 20 years for England and Wales, the figure was amendment that says that the fire service and the occupier some 1,724, so in terms of competent staff with rather should be entitled to accurate, as-built information. technicalexpertisetherehavebeenverysignificantreductions. Members of the Committee are probably aware of The impact assessment that has been produced in some of the dangers in procurement when materials get relation to the Bill does not, in our view, adequately changed during the design and construction process. take account of the demands that will be placed upon While we welcome the Bill, we await an improved the fire and rescue service as a result of the Bill. We enforcement regime in relation to building regulations therefore urge the Government and parliamentarians to and changes to the approved documents. To illustrate seek a more joined-up approach to the whole question the importance of that, for example, the Bill talks about of the fire safety regime, in this case across England. the need to review evacuation plans, but we know that some of the legislation around escape routes is ambiguous. The Chair: Thank you, Mr Wrack. You will now be We need to ensure that the two tie together. asked questions by a number of Members of Parliament. Matt Wrack: On the question of what “good” would We will start with Sarah Jones on behalf of Her Majesty’s look like, I am approaching this from the point of view loyal Opposition. of firefighters and the fire and rescue service. For us, there must be a joined-up approach between the specialist fire safety teams and firefighters on stations. Q24 Sarah Jones: Mr Dobson, in my former brief as the shadow housing Minister, I worked a lot with RIBA If you look at the question of resources—unfortunately, regarding the excellent work that you have done looking a lot of this does come down to resources—we need a at all these issues post Grenfell. Can you set out whether greater understanding of fire safety in the operational there is anything in the Bill and in the amendments that workforce. Unfortunately, over the past 15 or 20 years, we have tabled that you would disagree with, and what we have seen a reduction in initial training courses to you think “good” would look like in taking the Bill, and cut costs. Courses that might have been 16 weeks 20 years whatever else needs to be done, to create a fire safety ago are now reduced to 13 or 12 weeks, or less than system that works? 10 weeks in some cases. There needs to be a greater understanding at the station level of fire safety risks. Mr Wrack, you have already set out for us quite a lot of the concerns about funding. We know that the fire There needs to be an end to the reduction in fire service has had significant cuts over the past 10 years. safety teams. Fire services that have been financially Can you, again, tell us what “good” looks like in terms squeezed have found it easier to cut specialist fire safety of how we implement the Bill? What do we need in teams than fire stations. I am not in favour of cutting terms of resourcing and the joined-up approach that either, but they have cut fire safety teams. We have you talked about? reports of fire safety teams being cut by 25%, 50% or more over the past decade. Adrian Dobson: We certainly recognise that the Bill is important legislation. I will pick up on the point that We need a joined-up approach between the two wings Mr Wrack made on joined-up thinking. It is a piece in of the fire service in that respect. We need to prevent the jigsaw. We are still concerned about having strong fires from happening, if we can. We need to mitigate the and clear functioning building regulations and a proper spread of fire where it does occur. We need to know enforcement regime. Obviously, our main expertise is in how to fight fires when they occur—we know that they the design and construction of buildings to the point at will occur. That is what we mean by a joined-up approach. which they are handed over to the owner or occupier, or There are concerns among fire safety specialist officers where there is major refurbishment. about the levels of training, both at the stations and Our essential concern is the relationship between this among their peers. There are concerns about refresher Bill and the Building Safety Bill. The two must join training. If new materials come on to the market, such together. We would support most of the provisions in as cladding, there needs to be adequate resources to this Bill, particularly giving enforcement powers to local enable people to be updated with the latest developments. fire services in relation to the structure and external The final point I would make about what “good” walls of buildings, fire doors and so on. I note Mr Wrack’s would look like is that we need a much more joined-up point, however, that the resources must be in place to approach nationally to the whole question of fire, fire do that. policy and how we deal with fires. That means proper On joining the Fire Safety Bill and the Building research. It is alarming that many firefighters and many Safety Bill, I can highlight a danger whereby gaps might fire services apparently did not know what was being exist. For example, the fire safety order talks about a put on to buildings. They therefore had not researched 21 Public Bill Committee 25 JUNE 2020 Fire Safety Bill 22 how they would inspect such buildings to be aware of fire compartmentation and lack of proper fire barriers. the risks, for example, at Grenfell. They were also, You have pointed out the issue around means of escape therefore, not aware of how such fires might be tackled and evacuation strategies. To return to my earlier point, if necessary. I see this as only part of the jigsaw. What we desperately We used to have a body in the British fire service need is clarification of the building regulations themselves called the Central Fire Brigades Advisory Council, and a stronger enforcement or competency regime around which would have addressed such matters. Sadly, it was that, so that the two work together. abolished in 2004, and nothing similar has been put in Matt Wrack: I see the Bill as a clarifying Bill, as has place to replace it. That is what we mean by a lack of a been suggested. On that level, we welcome it, with some joined-up approach, and that is what is desperately of the amendments in particular. You highlight an missing in the fire safety regime in Britain today. important point—much of the national focus is on cladding. There is clearly a national scandal about flammable Q25 Daisy Cooper: Mr Wrack, in your written evidence, cladding being put on to buildings, but we are aware you say that from Grenfell and other fires that there are many other “the impact assessment ‘does not include any additional enforcement failings in fire safety in buildings, particularly with the costs’”, risk of the breakdown of compartmentation. Cladding and you suggest that fire inspectors would need to is clearly one mechanism by which that happened at spend Grenfell, but issues around other materials used in “a great deal of time and effort” renovations and modifications of buildings are also to focus on getting cases through the courts and so on. I relevant. If people have fire resistant walls and drill suspect this question might be like, “How long is a piece holes through them, that will clearly alter the fire resistance of string?”, but in the absence of an impact assessment, of the compartment. All those things need to be built can you give an estimate of your own assessment of into a proper fire safety regime. what those additional enforcement costs might be? I do not think the Bill addresses the question of Matt Wrack: I am afraid I am not able to give that. I evacuation. That is obviously a huge concern to people do think that, on the question of enforcement, there living in high-rise residential buildings; it is also a huge have been cases of ministerial pressure to reduce the concern to firefighters, who have been trained for decades enforcement role of the fire and rescue service, which is in ways to fight fires in high-rise residential buildings something that Ministers need to think carefully about. that are based on the construction and design of those Fire services have been criticised subsequently for being buildings. Over the past 20 years or so, those buildings slow to act on their enforcement role. have been modified in a way that was never intended, The whole question of fire services’ enforcement role which has altered the whole structure and fire behaviour ties in with the more general points I have made, in that in those buildings. they need adequate specialist fire safety teams, and that In our view, there is no simple answer to the question is possibly the area, or certainly one of the areas, where of evacuation. Again, we raised the question of a review we have seen the largest reductions in staffing levels, of evacuation at the close of stage 1 of the Grenfell Tower with all the knock-on concerns about training and inquiry.WenowhaveGovernmentbodieslookingatreviewing refresher training. I am not able to answer that question the evacuation policy and saying that it might take two directly, but I think it is very much a resource question. or three years. Firefighters were apparently supposed to decide on new strategies on the night, even though the people reviewing the policy have told us that it will take Q26 Andy Slaughter: Good afternoon to you both. them two years or more to reach such a conclusion. We have heard that this Bill is a clarifying Bill rather I come back to my point about a joined-up approach. than one that introduces new powers. Do you agree that We should have bodies in the British fire service that that is its purpose, and do you think it achieves that? take account of the views of all professionals, take The specific point that I would like you both to account of research and develop answers to these questions address is that it appears, as there is a specific mention as we go along. We should be horizon-scanning. There of “external walls” in clause 1, that the Bill is directed at had been fires in clad buildings elsewhere in the world. what we have already seen coming out of the Grenfell It is staggering that no one in leadership positions in the inquiry in relation to external cladding and cladding British fire service or at Government level was monitoring systems. But lots more issues have emerged from that, those and seeing what should happen to alter policy in such as the way that buildings are constructed or modified, Britain. means of escape, alarm systems and the processes for evacuation in that way. Do you think that they are also Q27 Andy Slaughter: I think we understand from adequately covered in the Bill or do we need other what you have said that there is a lot to do, and that legislation? Do you think we have the means to carry there are limited resources at the moment. Where work out all those matters? has been going on, do you think the best practice is Adrian Dobson: There is quite a range of questions being followed? Is that being done in both the maintenance there. Essentially, in my view, the Bill is just clarifying and the construction of buildings? We had a story in the and pointing to some key facts, as it is not fundamentally press last week about Berkeley Homes rowing back on changing the nature of the approach. I could not agree whether all types of cladding, including ACM cladding, more that, although it is useful to highlight the issue of should be removed from buildings. Do you think this is external wall construction and cladding, there are lots being taken seriously? When buildings are being given of other known issues in relation to fire safety. For planning permission, being constructed or being modified, example, the Scottish schools report talks a lot about are best practice and best standards being adhered to? 23 Public Bill Committee HOUSE OF COMMONS Fire Safety Bill 24

Adrian Dobson: I think I would answer broadly yes, think your Committee has today discussed some of the in those aspects that have now effectively been covered issues when it comes to private leaseholders in privately by prescriptive regulations. In relation to combustible owned blocks and the ultimate issue of where the funding external wall materials on high-rise residential buildings, will come from. That, of course, is what set off secondary we have at the moment a fairly prescriptive piece of problems within the insurance and mortgage markets. legislation that makes best practice pretty clear. As you One of the problems we face is professional indemnity say, however, there is a certain element of lobbying to insurance. Although the cladding can be identified through say that we need a more flexible approach, so you can testing and so on, it tends to require intrusive testing. It already see attempts to row back on that. In terms of requires specialists to look at it and that requires insurance what has actually been regulated, fairly good practice is for them, so there is a potential blockage. in place. We know there is quite a lot of good retrofitting The bigger concern is that following the fires we had work happening on buildings above 18 metres, even if it in Barking and Bolton, attention has naturally turned is very slow, but we do not really have much idea in to whether these sorts of materials pose a very significant terms of combustible materials below 18 metres. risk on lower-rise buildings. There has been discussion Matt Wrack: I would like to comment on the lobbying about what height threshold might apply. Some people that was mentioned by a building developer recently have suggested 11 metres—indeed, 11 metres is the and in some earlier comments in your session. One of height chosen by the Government for sprinklers—but the voices we are keen to hear are those of tenants. The one of the problems there is that you have got a whole lesson of Grenfell is that the voices of tenants were different order of magnitude, potentially, of properties ignored. The voices of tenants are often ignored in that could be affected. That may also be a factor that is relation to building and modifications to the places where driving some of the movement in the insurance sector, they live. The vast majority of tenants are respectable, because there is probably a realisation that this is potentially sensible people and their views should be heard. They a much larger problem than was first thought. were not heard at Grenfell. I think they, us and firefighters would have greater respect for a risk-based approach if Q29 Sarah Jones: Mr Wrack, do you think that we we could have the confidence in such a risk-based approach. understand the scale of the problem that we face? Unfortunately,experience shows that risk-based approaches According to the figures that came out this week, an are often driven by commercial and financial interests, extraordinarily high proportion—I think it was something and that is why people have scepticism about them. like 65%—of inspected fire doors were wrong in some way or other. Do you think we even know quite what we are dealing with in terms of the scale of that problem? Q28 Sarah Jones: Mr Wrack, could you just give us your view on the current system of fire risk assessors Mr Dobson, do you agree with Mr Wrack’s frustration and how that needs to be changed? Labour and the about the time that it has taken to do all of that? Liberal Democrats have tabled amendments on having Grenfell was three years ago. What should we be doing? a more qualified regime. It would be good to hear your Clearly,there is huge complexity and hundreds of working thoughts on that. Mr Dobson, it would be helpful to get groups at the Ministry of Housing, Communities and your sense, which we have sort of touched on, of the Local Government are working through all this. Equally, issue that there is so much to be done: the point about there is a real hunger for going faster. Is there any way just the G15 having to spend £6.8 billion and the time in which you think we could and should be going faster? all that will take. How do we prioritise? How do we Matt Wrack: No, I do not think that we grasp the fund that? What does that process look like going scale of the problem at all. If I can refer back to forward? Grenfell, the focus of the country has been on ACM Matt Wrack: We oppose a deregulated system of fire cladding, but what we found at Grenfell was that virtually risk assessors. Sadly, much of the work we end up doing every single element of fire protection in the building arises out of tragedies. One of our experiences in that failed. So if that has happened in one building, what is regard relates to the death of one of our own members. the scale in every building in the country? It is immense. It emerged that the fire risk assessor in the case concerned There has been a lot of renovation, refurbishment and had few or no qualifications in that field and had simply modification of buildings over the past 20 or 30 years, set up in business as a fire risk assessor. That highlighted which has altered the building as it was originally to us a disgraceful state of affairs, so we would support designed and constructed, so we will therefore have the better regulation of fire risk assessors. However, the altered fire behaviour in such buildings, particularly for best protection we have, in terms of the delivery of compartmentation, in relation to the response of firefighters. advice to occupiers and building owners, and the best That brings me back to our frustration with the Bill’s mechanism for inspection and enforcement, is a well- impact assessment, because it is based on the current resourced and highly skilled workforce in a publicly way that buildings are looked at. In our view, we need a accountable fire and rescue service. much better way of looking at buildings. That would Adrian Dobson: Clearly,on the specific issue of cladding require time for an upskilling of firefighters in fire and insulation, retrofitting is possible. The very reason stations so that they recognise risks and can then refer those materials were used for cladding is because they them to specialist teams within the fire service. That are lightweight and external—they do not form part of would require training for both groups of staff and the structure of the building—so the practicality of adequate powers to undertake the necessary inspections making buildings safer is definitely there. We have seen on a scale that, at the moment, we do not currently some, albeit slow, progress. grasp in full detail. As I think one of the witnesses in your earlier session The Chair: Thank you. Mr Dobson, we will finish the said, the cost can be very significant indeed. While sitting at two o’clock, so you have two minutes to steady progress is being made in the social sector, I answer. 25 Public Bill Committee 25 JUNE 2020 Fire Safety Bill 26

Adrian Dobson: I will try to rise to that challenge. I not seen a comprehensive review of the actual guidance think that we see the problems as threefold. There is an that people work to, so we are essentially working to the issue around how we procure buildings in the first place same approved documents that we worked to previously. and procure alterations to buildings. I imagine that That is disappointing because, although people recognise when the final report of the Grenfell Tower inquiry is the need for research on some of those issues, we seem written, it will have much to say about that. Then, there reluctant to get on and commission it and, as Mr Wrack is an issue of competence and expertise, which you have said, reluctant to learn from colleagues in other countries already touched on. Of course, the UK construction who have experienced similar problems. industry is a relatively deregulated industry with very few regulatory competence requirements—they are mainly The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Dobson and voluntary systems—so the industry will really have to Mr Wrack, for your excellent evidence—you have helped put its house in order if it is going to regain public the Committee enormously.As you know, we will grapple confidence. with those issues this afternoon as we go through the Bill line by line. There is also a regulatory problem. We have seen movement on the introduction of requirements for 1 pm sprinklers being extended, and on combustible materials— from the consultation, that is likely to be extended. The Chair adjourned the Committee without Question However, although we have good movement on the put (Standing Order No. 88). building safety Bill and on the Fire Safety Bill, we have Adjourned till this day at Two o’clock.

PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES HOUSE OF COMMONS OFFICIAL REPORT GENERAL COMMITTEES

Public Bill Committee

FIRE SAFETY BILL

Second Sitting

Thursday 25 June 2020

(Afternoon)

CONTENTS

CLAUSES 1 TO 3 agreed to. New clauses considered. Bill to be reported, without amendment. Written evidence reported to the House.

PBC (Bill 121) 2019 - 2021 No proofs can be supplied. Corrections that Members suggest for the final version of the report should be clearly marked in a copy of the report—not telephoned—and must be received in the Editor’s Room, House of Commons,

not later than

Monday 29 June 2020

© Parliamentary Copyright House of Commons 2020 This publication may be reproduced under the terms of the Open Parliament licence, which is published at www.parliament.uk/site-information/copyright/. 27 Public Bill Committee 25 JUNE 2020 Fire Safety Bill 28

The Committee consisted of the following Members:

Chairs: †SIR GARY STREETER,GRAHAM STRINGER

† Bacon, Gareth (Orpington) (Con) † Malthouse, Kit (Minister for Crime and Policing) † Britcliffe, Sara (Hyndburn) (Con) † Moore, Damien (Southport) (Con) † Buck, Ms Karen (Westminster North) (Lab) † Saxby, Selaine (North Devon) (Con) Clark, Feryal (Enfield North) (Lab) † Simmonds, David (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) † Cooper, Daisy (St Albans) (LD) (Con) † Slaughter, Andy (Hammersmith) (Lab) † Duffield, Rosie (Canterbury) (Lab) † Tomlinson, Michael (Lord Commissioner of Her † Eshalomi, Florence (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op) Majesty’s Treasury) Hunt, Jane (Loughborough) (Con) † Jones, Sarah (Croydon Central) (Lab) Yohanna Sallberg, Committee Clerk † Lewer, Andrew (Northampton South) (Con) † Longhi, Marco (Dudley North) (Con) † attended the Committee 29 Public Bill Committee HOUSE OF COMMONS Fire Safety Bill 30

it, but he has made some powerful points and they are Public Bill Committee now firmly on the record. We will now start line-by-line scrutiny. Thursday 25 June 2020 Clause 1 (Afternoon) POWER TO CHANGE PREMISES TO WHICH THE FIRE SAFETY ORDER APPLIES [SIR GARY STREETER in the Chair] Andy Slaughter: I beg to move amendment 1, in Fire Safety Bill clause 1, page 1, line 6, leave out lines 7 to 14 and insert— 2 pm “(1A) Where a building contains two or more sets of domestic The Chair: We now begin line-by-line consideration premises, the things to which this order applies include— of the Bill. Members will understand the need to respect (a) the building’s structure and external walls and floors, social distancing guidance. I will intervene if necessary and any common parts; to remind everyone, but at the moment it is okay. (b) all doors between the domestic premises and common Members may remove jackets during our proceedings. parts (so far as not falling within sub-paragraph (a)). Tea and coffee are not permitted during our sittings, (1B) The reference to external walls and floors includes— and Members must ensure that mobile phones are (a) doors, windows or penetrations in those walls and turned off or switched to silent mode. floors, and” The selection list for today’s sitting, which is available This amendment would apply the Fire Safety Bill specifically to in the room, shows how the amendments selected for penetrations that pass from a dwelling, through a fire-rated wall or debate have been grouped. Please note that decisions on floor into a common space. amendments take place not in the order that they are debated, but in the order in which they appear on the The Chair: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment paper. Hansard reporters would be most amendment 2, in clause 1, page 1, line 8, after “include” grateful if Members could email electronic copies of insert their speaking notes to [email protected]. “all other parts of that building including—” This amendment aims to clarify that the Regulatory Reform (Fire Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab): On a point of Safety) Order 2005 applies to all parts of a building that contains two order, Sir Gary. I apologise for rising so early. I do not or more dwellings, other than those dwellings themselves, and is not want to start on a contentious or sour note in what I am limited to parts that come within the meaning of structure, external sure will be a consensual Committee, but there was walls or common parts. some consternation about the way in which the Committee Will the hon. Gentleman move one chair to his left? was timetabled. I make no criticism of the necessary That would be better from a social distancing point of rigours enforced on us by social distancing; the staff view. have done an excellent job in that respect. The issue of fire safety in tall buildings, particularly Andy Slaughter: Thank you, Sir Gary, for looking in west London, is very important. It is one of the very after my and everybody else’s health. I rise to speak to few issues that keep me awake at night. We are dealing amendment 1, tabled in my name. It is grouped with with the whole the Bill, which, as the evidence session amendment 2, tabled in the name of the shadow Minister, this morning showed, ramifies in many ways, in one day. my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon Central. The We had the evidence session this morning, and we are two matters are linked. My amendment, as is the custom dealing with line-by-line consideration of the whole in my case, is more pedantic and finickity than the Bill, albeit a short Bill, this afternoon. The evidence was broader amendment 2. If I may, I will speak to my own excellent; it would have been good to have time to digest amendment. it and perhaps propose amendments on the basis of it. As I mentioned a few moments ago, we had a very We now have three hours for debate—I will be brief so useful evidence session this morning. It was short—only as not to eat into that time—and we also have a Committee an hour and a half—but there was a lot of information that is smaller than was originally envisaged. That is there. What came through from all the witnesses was partly to do with the constraints of the room and social that this Bill clarifies existing law. It is a matter of distancing, but it is an unhelpful precedent. constitutional debate whether the function of legislation I do not know whether it is a matter for the Chair or is to clarify existing law. Governments have a habit of for the Government to take away, but I wanted to put doing that to fill in time or to make an emphatic point, on record my concerns. The matter before us needs to although it is perhaps not a good use of legislation. It is be explored in depth; it has huge complexities and clear, however, that there are problems that need to be different streams, even within the limits of the Bill, resolved in relation to fire safety, which has troubled us which is one of several. I hope that the authorities and hugely since the Grenfell Tower disaster three years ago the Government will take away the message that scrutiny and should have been troubling us for many years should not in any way be constrained. previously in the light of other disasters. I guess, therefore, that the Bill is intended not so The Chair: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I much to change the law, but to say, “This is the law, and have taken notice of his point of order. The programming this is what should have been happening.” That begs motion has already been agreed, so we cannot change others questions. Are the resources there now to make 31 Public Bill Committee 25 JUNE 2020 Fire Safety Bill 32 this happen? Is the focus of the Bill in the right area? In openings or apertures created in a building may well be questions this morning, I made the point—and I do not through floors. The danger is that anything of that kind think the experts dissented—that the phrase, “the building’s will allow the spread of fire—but not only fire, as I will structure and external walls and any common parts”, in come on to explain in a moment—throughout a building clause 1, line 8, is rather tendentious. The “building’s very quickly, particularly if there are pipes and ducts. If structure”could mean anything in relation to the building, the opportunity arises for fire to spread, it can go but it is then qualified by the reference to “external through them very quickly. As I say, it is not just fire, walls” and “common parts”. but smoke and other gases. A major factor at Grenfell My amendment addresses the issue of whether there was the spread of smoke through the building. That can is a clear definition of common parts, but I think we all make escape difficult and, particularly if it is created by know why the phrase “external walls” is in the Bill. As the burning of toxic materials,can create a toxic atmosphere, has already come out of the Grenfell inquiry—indeed, which has an effect on the respiratory system of those the recommendation from the inquiry was perhaps not trying to escape the fire. needed—a substantial cause of the Grenfell disaster, as To explain my point, I will provide an example from well as a contributory factor in many other major fires, my constituency. It did not end in disaster, I am pleased including in high-rise buildings, has been the type of to say, but it easily could have done. In January this material that adheres to or forms part of the external year, a resident of a block of flats with over 20 storeys structure of the building. That could be cladding—certain was returning home late at night when she noticed a types of which have been found to be more combustible strong smell of gas. She checked her flat but could not than others—insulation, or the way in which the materials find anything that was causing the smell. Fortunately, combine. We are only scratching the surface—excuse there was a member of staff, a concierge, on site even at the pun—of the types of cladding and systems that are that late time. They investigated, and the National Grid appropriate to be used, or to remain in use, on such was called out, but it could not find anything. Neighbours’ buildings. doors were knocked on, and the emergency services It is pretty clear, however, that such material is a were called out. By this time, it was the early hours of major focus of the Bill. The money, time and resources the morning and neighbours on several floors were the Government have spent so far—many of us believe being woken up. Eventually, the source of the gas leak they have not gone far enough—have gone on looking was found four floors below. An elderly resident—over at aluminium composite material cladding and then 80, I think—with an elderly gas stove had turned on the perhaps at high pressure laminate and other types of gas and left it on. The gas had effectively filled the cladding. No doubt, as we consider the Bill, there will whole block, from the ground floor reception up to at be some focus on that. My amendment, and that of my least the eighth or ninth floors of the block. hon. Friend the Member for Croydon Central, go slightly This matter ramifies endlessly. Why should an unsafe beyond that. As Matt Wrack, the general secretary of gas appliance be allowed in a block anyway? Modern the Fire Brigades Union, pointed out this morning, gas appliances have failsafe mechanisms—if the gas is Grenfell has exposed not only that there are issues with left on, they will shut off after a while—but unfortunately cladding, but that there are fire safety issues in the the reality is that some people, particularly poorer construction, management and operation of tall buildings, people perhaps, will have very old gas appliances that in particular, that go far beyond that. do not work in that way, and therefore the gas, after My amendment addresses a specific point by dealing being turned on, will fill the whole flat. In this case, the with opportunities for fire to penetrate into a building occupant, who had obviously made a genuine mistake, other than through doors and windows. Doors and needed oxygen. Many people had either opened their windows are a major way in which fire can enter a windows or were confused about what was happening. dwelling. If a window is open or a fire door is not—as It was only because of the excellent action by one my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon Central explained concerned resident—this was the opinion of the emergency this morning—sufficient, sufficiently well fitted or has services—that the matter did not end up in disaster. other defects that do not maintain a 30 or 60-minute What happened late at night in January was that the gas barrier, there is that opportunity. It is perhaps stating did not pass through doors or windows but up through the obvious to say that the reason that flammable the building, potentially causing great stress. cladding is such a danger is that it allows fire to spread My point is that, with fire, smoke and other noxious across the face of the building in a very short space of fumes passing through a building, it is complacent to time, as we saw at Grenfell. That in itself is not what is say that simply ensuring that fire doors work and that causing the problem; it is the ingress of that fire into the windows are properly sealed and do not have combustible building itself. That could be through a window that is material around them means that a building is entirely open or through a door that is insecure, but it could be safe and the fire will not spread internally. I hope the through any other means of entry. There are other ways Government will accept my amendment. It is a relatively for fire to spread that are perhaps more serious than technical addition, which improves the Bill rather than doors and windows. That is why I used the word changes it materially. I will wait to see what the Minister “penetrations”. They could be ducting, pipework or says in response; he might want to break the habit of a openings that have been created for good or bad purposes: lifetime and say that we can allow an Opposition it could be shoddy workmanship, but equally it could be amendment to get the Bill Committee off to a flying something necessary to do with the supply of services start. through the building. One other point on amending clause 1 was to add the 2.15 pm words “external walls and floors”. It is clear why clause Amendment 2 is more comprehensive and very sensible. 1 mentions doors and windows—generally we have It would clarify that, as well as the occupied residence doors and windows; I understand that point—but other itself—the hereditament, the domicile, or however we 33 Public Bill Committee HOUSE OF COMMONS Fire Safety Bill 34 want to define it—everything in the building should be I had a long conversation with the London Fire Brigade covered by the Bill. I am not sure that the Bill’s wording about how we define “common parts”. Introducing that adequately does that at the moment, but the belt and term without a definition alongside the definition of braces suggested in amendment 2 would do so. “domestic premises” in article 2 of the fire safety order I am vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary fire could lead to confusion about what it means and could safety and rescue group, which is an excellent group, add an additional layer of complexity to what is already chaired for many years by the hon. Member for Southend quite a difficult landscape. West (Sir David Amess). Its honorary secretary, Ronnie In the past, “common parts” has been used to refer to King, was a very senior chief fire officer, and the group entrance halls, corridors or stairways in a block of flats, does a lot of extra work. Yesterday we had a presentation but it does not necessarily cover areas such as lift motor from the Fire Protection Association, which dealt with rooms, service risers, roof voids and other potentially exactly the points I am making. One thing that struck high-risk areas, as well as fire safety facilities that are me about that presentation was that the test platform inside individual dwellings but used in common for the for fire safety had become the development platform. protection of the entire premises, such as sprinklers and That means that the planning and testing for tall buildings detection systems. has been based on a model that is not reproduced in real This is not a new issue. Following the Lakanal House life, and that developers therefore build without regard fire, the coroner recommended that there be clear guidance to the matters we are talking about in the Bill—without on the definition of “common parts”in buildings containing regard to the effect of windows, doors and other apertures. multiple domestic premises. Dame Judith Hackitt has That is a serious contributory factor to the spread of also recommended that the assignment of responsibilities fire. in blocks of flats be clarified. I am sure we are going to focus on cladding this The purpose of the Bill, as we discussed this morning afternoon, but we should be aware that, yes, it is the and as my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith accelerant, but there are other causes of spread. I have has already mentioned, is to provide clarity on what is dealt with gas, but we might also look at electrical covered under the law. Without really clear definitions, appliances, which appear to have caused the fire at there will be new questions of interpretation, and we Grenfell Tower and a serious one at Shepherd’s Court in will not achieve what we are setting out to achieve. my constituency the year before Grenfell. All these There will be the potential for confusion and conflict. matters need to be addressed. In so far as we cannot be certain about whether human error is involved or about Simply put, the absence of a clear definition creates the role that the complexity of different types of tenure opportunities for those who might try to game the plays, as we discussed this morning, we have to be as system. We know that the system has not worked in the certain as we can that if a fire starts it will be controlled. past, because people have been able to do things that The strategy behind fire safety in this country—the nobody intended them to do. We want to make it crystal stay put policy for tall buildings, which is now itself clear that the provisions cover all common parts of the coming into question—depends on compartmentalisation building, and want to make it clear that “common and on fire being contained within a small area of a parts” includes all the other spaces, such as lift motor block. If there is the opportunity for it to spread, rooms, that are not set out in the Bill. because fire doors do not work, windows have combustible surrounds, or the fire can penetrate elsewhere, we David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) immediately undermine the whole principle. That is the (Con): I very much sympathise with the motivation reason for amendment 2. behind the amendments, but I am unpersuaded by the argument. There is sometimes a risk of seeking to make Sarah Jones (Croydon Central) (Lab): Let me start by very precise what in reality is not at all precise. saying that the Opposition support the Bill. We are here to be constructive. Although clearly we wish that things Following the Grenfell Tower disaster and the Lakanal had gone faster and that we had been able to do more, House fire, the Local Government Association, working we support the Bill and want to make it the best that it with local authorities across the country, commissioned can be. On Second Reading there was agreement across a huge piece of work to try to understand the inherent the House on what needs to be done to fix some of the risks in tall buildings, but also in other types of building problems with the legislation. Amendment 2 relates to in the public estate, and to learn lessons that might be one of those problems, which has been raised by many relevant to the private sector. of the organisations that have submitted written evidence. I want to refer to a particular type of structure I associate myself with everything said by my hon. known as a Bison block, which is common in west Friend the Member for Hammersmith, who is an expert London and found across my constituency, and which in this area. He is absolutely right that we need to my local authority has spent a good amount of time ensure right at the outset that we include parts of the examining. It is particularly relevant to amendment 2, building not currently listed in the Bill. which is seeking a very tight definition. The blocks were Amendment 2 would do what amendment 1 would large panel system builds. They are quite common do, but in a slightly different way. As the explanatory across the capital and in other parts of the country. statement states, the amendment would make the A great many of these blocks were extensively Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 apply refurbished, particularly in the 1980s, because they are “to all parts of a building that contains two or more dwellings, not especially attractive buildings and in the past there other than those dwellings themselves,” have been concerns about their structural integrity and Not just the safety. The refurbishment was undertaken by a process “parts that come within the meaning of structure, external walls that we might understand as cladding. In this case, a or common parts.” brick skin was erected around the entire outside of the 35 Public Bill Committee 25 JUNE 2020 Fire Safety Bill 36 building. New windows were installed, and the structure Alongside the consultation, there is the building safety now looks considerably more attractive than when it Bill, which will be presented in the House for pre-legislative was first constructed. scrutiny before the summer recess. That Bill will put in To manage the risk of fire spreading in the cavity place new and enhanced regulatory regimes for building between the floor where a fire occurs and another floor, safety and construction products, and will ensure that a steel band needs to be installed between each storey’s- residents have a stronger voice in the system. It will take worth of brick structure. It ensures that a fire that gets forward the recommendations of Dame Judith Hackitt’s into that cavity cannot spread up or down. On examination independent review of building regulations and fire following the Grenfell disaster, it was discovered that safety. some of the window installations, for example, had Our programme of work is not limited to legislation, been changed, which had had an impact on the integrity of course.It includes establishing a remediation programme, of the fire safety system. The banding had been constructed supported by £1.6 billion of Government funding, through many years ago. The challenges of inspecting something which we will remove unsafe cladding from high-rise that is inside a sealed brick structure, the natural residential buildings. We are undertaking, in conjunction dilapidations of time and the consequences of a small with the fire service, a building risk review programme amount of heave or subsidence around the site would for all high-rise residential buildings in England by all have had an impact on it. That is a significant issue December 2021, supported by £10 million of new funding. for those of us who are concerned about the safety of This Fire Safety Bill is also a move towards enhancing those high-rise towers. safety in all multi-occupied residential buildings by I am concerned that the amendment, by seeking to be improving the identification, assessment and mitigation very precise, could open the door to our not including a of fire risks in those buildings. It will resolve the differing number of the elements that we would see in a variety of interpretations of the scope of the fire safety order in structures around the country. I have heard the Minister such buildings and provide clarity for responsible persons speak about this before when questions have been asked and enforcing authorities under the order. It will make of him. I am satisfied that one of the motivations it clear that the order applies to the structure, external behind the Government’s choice of wording was to walls—including cladding—balconies and flat entrance make the definition sufficiently broad that all the issues doors in multi-occupied residential buildings. were captured. To ensure that the definition relates to all the different, unique types of structure out there, 2.30 pm many of which there may be little evidence of on the public record today, it may be wise not to narrow our As we heard this morning, for many, the Bill will definitions too much. We could end up with a lawyers’ result in operational changes that will present challenges. bonanza of arguments about whether, for example, the On Second Reading, we heard differing views from provision covers the steel band structure for fire safety Members on how to commence the Bill, and there are in a Bison block. For that reason, I am unpersuaded of also diverse stakeholder views. The Government are the merits of the amendment. clear that we need to work with the industry and others to take account of the scale of the changes, and the The Minister for Crime and Policing (Kit Malthouse): capacity and expertise needed in the system given the I am very conscious, not least as the former London volume of fire risk assessments that will need to be Assembly member for the area, that it is less than two updated. That will have to be balanced against the need weeks since we marked the third anniversary of the to take swift action to identify and address serious fire Grenfell Tower fire, which saw the worst loss of life in a risks in multi-occupied residential buildings. As I said residential fire since the second world war. I am sure this morning, the Government have established a task that all those who died, the bereaved and the survivors and finish group to advise us on commencement. will be in our minds as we do our work this afternoon The Government will fund the British Standards and into the future. Institution to produce guidance for the assessment of On the day of the publication of the Grenfell Tower external wall systems. That guidance will encourage inquiry phase 1 report, my right hon. Friend the Prime competent and suitably qualified individuals to assess Minister accepted in principle all 12 recommendations the fire risk of external wall systems and help support addressed to the Government directly. Eleven of the the implementation of the Bill. recommendations will require implementation in law. I turn to the amendments. Amendment 1 would The Fire Safety Bill, which will amend the Regulatory ensure that the fire safety order applied to penetrations Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005, is an important first from a dwelling—interpreted as domestic premises— step toward enacting those recommendations. As has through a fire-rated wall or floor into a common space. been mentioned, the Bill is short and technical; it clarifies Our position is that the order applies to the whole the scope of the order. We appreciate that this is the first building except what is excluded by article 6 of the Bill on fire safety since the Grenfell Tower tragedy, and order. That includes domestic premises. By seeking we intend to legislate further. specifically to cover penetrations passing from domestic It is vital that regulatory standards and public confidence premises into non-domestic areas or common parts, the be increased across the whole system of building and amendment could be interpreted as extending the order fire safety. Next month we will publish a consultation into domestic premises, which in turn could create a on the implementation of the phase 1 recommendations significant extension of the scope of the fire safety that call for changes in the law, alongside proposals to order—namely, into people’s private homes. The order strengthen other aspects of the fire safety order. I assure has always excluded domestic premises except in very the Committee that the Bill is the start, not the finish, of limited circumstances that are not relevant to the a process through which we intend to improve the fire amendment, and we stand by the order’soriginal intention safety order. and effect. 37 Public Bill Committee HOUSE OF COMMONS Fire Safety Bill 38

I understand and sympathise with the concerns of issue of leaseholders who provide their own front doors the hon. Member for Hammersmith, whom I have and how far that is considered, but there are other known for many years. As he rightly said, effective issues. There are issues to do with sprinkler systems and compartmentation prevents a fire and its smoke from their installation in the homes of either leaseholders or spreading from a flat and, importantly, protects the tenants—assured or secure. This is not a black-and-white normal escape routes, allowing residents to evacuate to issue in terms of what goes into individual homes. safety. Of course, walls and floors outside the domestic The amendment is a necessary or at least helpful premises are covered by the order. As I have said, our addition to the Bill. Over a period of 30 or 40 years, a position is that everything not specifically excluded is huge number of modifications will be made to buildings, within scope. Any penetration into the common parts even if, when a building was originally constructed, it can be observed, assessed and taken into account as was done in a secure way that would prevent the spread part of the responsible person’s fire risk assessment, of fire and smoke. We know that this issue has been and where necessary, general fire precautions can be put neglected, but it is so important that it should be in place that protect the common parts, and particularly reflected. However, given that the Minister has put it on the route of escape. the record that he believes that these matters will be I remind the Committee that if a local authority dealt with, through the Bill and other measures that the considers there to be a serious hazard in a residential Government are taking, I do not propose to press building, including in an individual dwelling, it must the amendment to a vote. take enforcement action under the Housing Act 2004. Such hazards are assessed using the housing health and Sarah Jones: I thank the Minister for his response. He safety rating system, the HHSRS. Structural collapse, was basically saying that amendment 2 is unnecessary, failing elements and fire safety hazards are assessed 1 which I would challenge, because the fire service has using that tool . Under the proposed building safety asked for the definition and thinks that it would be an regime, the safety case will cover the totality of the important part of the Bill. I agree with the fire service, building safety information, including all supporting but I take the same approach as my hon. Friend the evidence identifying how fire and structural risks are Member for Hammersmith and hope that these matters being managed for all buildings within its scope. will be looked at as we go forward. I assure the Committee that the Government intend to issue guidance to support those who will be operating under the Bill’s provisions. The guidance will be drawn Kit Malthouse: Fundamentally, as my hon. Friend up with the assistance of practitioners, and will provide the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner says, a level of specification to operationalise the changes to we are concerned that the definitions in the amendments the order and ensure that they are interpreted and might have a narrowing effect. Detailed guidance offering applied consistently. definitions will come out as a consequence of the Bill, and obviously we will work with partners to ensure that Amendment 2 seeks to clarify that the order applies we get that guidance right. to It is worth pointing out that this approach is consistent “all parts of a building that contains two or more dwellings, other with that in the Housing Act 2004, which uses similarly than those dwellings themselves”. broad definitions to ensure that the many and various As I have said, the order specifically excludes domestic varieties of housing in this country, some built over premises. The Bill does not change the definition of many hundreds of years, all fall within a generalised domestic premises, and we seek to state expressly that definition in guidance that is put in place later on. external walls and flat entrance doors, which it could be argued are parts of domestic premises and are therefore excluded, are indeed in scope. The Government have Andy Slaughter: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the not included a proposition to the effect that the fire amendment. safety order applies to all other parts of the building, as Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. we believe that to be unnecessary, and it could cast Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the doubt on article 6(2). The Government therefore resist Bill. the amendment. I hope that I have given enough reassurance for both amendments to not be pressed. Sarah Jones: As the Minister said, we recently passed the three-year anniversary of the Grenfell Tower fire. I Andy Slaughter: I will reply to two points. The first just want to mention the letter that we will all have was made by the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood received from Grenfell United last night. It was not able and Pinner, who has huge experience in this sphere, not to give evidence before us today, but it welcomes the Bill least from his role in local government over the years. I and is pushing for it to have the funding that it needs disagree with his point because the example that he gave and for it to apply to all buildings. It reminded us of the of modifications to the exterior of a building should be fire in Canning Tower, in east London, only last week, included in the Bill under that part of clause 1 that talks when 100 people were evacuated. It used to be covered about external walls. I think that that is specifically with Grenfell-style cladding, but that was removed last envisaged to include not just external cladding but the year, just in the nick of time. As the letter says, there whole external structure; it would therefore include were not any serious consequences. voids and attempts that have been made through banding The importance of the Bill is not to be underestimated. to restrict those voids. Small though it is, it is incredibly important. We support Equally, I do not agree with what the Minister said. the Bill and we support clause 1. It provides clarification, We all understand the point about private homes. It although it is a shame that we could not take it a bit cannot be dismissed. We mentioned this morning the further with our amendments. There are many issues 1.[Official Report, 8 July 2020, Vol. 678, c. 4MC.] 39 Public Bill Committee 25 JUNE 2020 Fire Safety Bill 40 that we would want to bring into the Bill, but because it Bill. The issue was brought to our attention by the is too small in scale, we cannot. They include electrical London Fire Brigade, and it makes a reasonable point. safety—people are keen for us to talk about that, and Clause 2 provides for further changes to be made to my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith mentioned the scope of the 2005 order, and clarification of its it. We tried to have some of those issues included in the application. Our amendments would ensure that there Bill, but they are not within its scope. There is a huge was sufficient legal power, which could be relied on to raft of issues beyond that of cladding—important as it respond to emerging evidence or events. It is important is—that we must address, through the building safety that we should not find that there are constraints in the Bill and subsequent measures. future. The London Fire Brigade gave some examples of things that could be included. One was a legal Kit Malthouse: The hon. Lady is right to raise with mechanism for improvements to or replacement of the me whether there is a need to address the issue of front doors of flats. Others were the installation of cabling and ducting in buildings. That was raised with additional fire detection and warning systems, the me when I was Housing Minister, and I hope that I have retrospective fitting of fire safety measures in a building, explained that there will be opportunities to look at that and the adjustment or clarification of what an enforcing quite soon, in more comprehensive measures to follow. authority might need to be notified about. For the moment, the Bill is a small, tight, technical one, As I have said and will keep saying, we welcome the which creates the foundational stone on which we will Bill. We do not think it goes far enough, but want to build an entirely new regulatory and fire safety regime, make sure it does everything it sets out to do. We want which must be coherent. We must therefore proceed to make sure that it is possible to make changes or step by step. I fully appreciate the comments that Members additions to this cornerstone or foundation, as the have made, and they will be fed into the next stage of Minister called it, including as a result of what comes our work, and the consultation, which will be issued from phase 2 of the Grenfell inquiry. next month. Question put and agreed to. Amendment 5 would ensure that there was proper alignment between the 2005 order and other regulations Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. on fire safety. The forthcoming building safety Bill, which we have talked about, will place requirements on accountable persons to ensure that buildings in occupation Clause 2 are safe.

POWER TO CHANGE PREMISES TO WHICH THE FIRE This will include fire safety and will place enforcement SAFETY ORDER APPLIES responsibility with the new building safety regulator.

Sarah Jones: I beg to move amendment 3, in clause 2, 2.45 pm page 1, line 21, at end insert— ‘(aa) for the purpose of changing or clarifying any of The fire safety order refers to a responsible person, articles 2 to 22 or 38 of the Order’. but it is not clear whether this aligns precisely with the This amendment aims to ensure that the key articles of the Regulatory accountable person or the building safety manager referred Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 can be amended to account for the to in the “Building a safer future” consultation. We have Grenfell Tower Public Inquiry Phase 1 and subsequently the Phase 2 heard from local government that a lack of clarity recommendations and changes that may be brought about by the about the boundary between the fire safety order and forthcoming Building Safety Bill. the Housing Act 2004 has been a complicating factor in resolving issues with dangerous cladding on buildings, The Chair: With this it will be convenient to discuss so it would be useful to hear from the Minister; hopefully the following: he can provide assurance that the concept of the responsible person aligns precisely with the accountable person or Amendment 4, in clause 2, page 1, line 22, at end the building safety manager referred to in the consultation. insert ‘or (aa)’. If someone is deemed to be the responsible person for See amendment 3. the purposes of the fire safety order,will they be considered Amendment 5, in clause 2, page 1, line 22, at end the accountable person or building safety manager under the insert building safety Bill? ‘(1A) The relevant authority may make regulations under subsection (1) for the purpose of aligning the Order with These are issues of quite complex semantics, but they regulations which concern fire safety and which are made under are important, and we need to make sure that there is any other power.’ clarity about who is responsible for carrying out essential This amendment seeks to ensure there is proper alignment between the fire safety checks in all circumstances. Any confusion or Fire Safety Order and other regulations that relate to fire safety, ambivalence would lead to delays or attempts to shift including the upcoming Building Safety Bill. responsibility, which could put lives at risk. The entire purpose of the Bill is to clarify fire safety rules in order to reduce any risk to life, so I urge the Minister to Sarah Jones: Amendments 3 and 4 would ensure that consider the merits of the amendment. the key articles of the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 could be amended to account for the Grenfell Concerns were raised about this issue on Second Tower public inquiry phase 1 recommendations—and Reading. There is a risk of creating silo pieces of the phase 2 recommendations, although of course phase 2 legislation that do not talk to each other; it would be has not happened yet—as well as any changes that may good to understand from the Minister what could be be brought about by the forthcoming building safety done about that, what the Government are doing, and 41 Public Bill Committee HOUSE OF COMMONS Fire Safety Bill 42 how we can make sure that we do not create silos. persons. That can be used to provide additional fire Again, Members from all parties raised this issue on precaution requirements over and above those already Second Reading. required under the order. Although powers that enable legislation to be expedited Andy Slaughter: Briefly, it is very important that there when needed, and with the appropriate scrutiny, have is the closest possible alignment between the Bill and clear benefits, the Government’s view is that it would what emerges from the Grenfell inquiry. We have had not be appropriate to ask Parliament to delegate legislative phase 1 of the inquiry, which dealt with what happened power in the manner proposed. I have made the point on the night. Phase 2 is coming, albeit not for some already that this is a short and technical Bill. We intend time. It relates to the wider issues of concern around to legislate further. The Government will shortly publish building safety, and of course there is further legislation the second of our fire and building safety Bills, the coming about building safety. building safety Bill. Alongside this, there will be pre- We heard evidence this morning from the Royal legislative scrutiny: we will publish a fire safety consultation, Institute of British Architects and the Fire Brigades which will set out our proposals for strengthening the Union. Despite their very different perspectives and fire safety order and improving compliance on all regulated experiences, they were essentially saying the same thing: premises, leading to greater competence and accountability. that Grenfell has exposed not just the really criminal We will also implement the recommendations of the action of putting highly combustible material on the Grenfell Tower inquiry’s phase 1 report, which calls for outside of tower blocks, but the huge weaknesses and new requirements to be established in law to ensure the inadequacies in the system, causing us to look again at protection of residents in multi-occupied residential the whole way in which building safety works. high-rise buildings, with some proposals applying to Just one example of that is the stay put policy. Most multi-occupied residential buildings of any height. experts will say, “Well, the stay put policy is still in As the Committee has heard, the Government are effect.” That may be literally true, in the sense that for taking further steps to ensure that the fire safety order most blocks that do not have combustible cladding and continues to be fit for purpose, as part of our consideration where compartmentalisation works, it may be the opinion of reform of the wider building safety landscape. The of experts—whether they are from the fire service, are consultation will propose changes to strengthen the building experts, or others—that it is safer to stay in a order in a number of areas to improve fire safety flat than to leave it while the fire is contained within a standards. It will also seek further evidence and implement single flat in a high-rise block, but try telling that to the further legislation if required. occupants of that block post Grenfell. The Leader of the House made comments about the Sir Martin Moore-Bick’s report examining the events evacuation of Grenfell Tower that were not just unhelpful of the night of 14 June—the night of the Grenfell but disrespectful; he asked whether people were right to Tower fire—was exhaustive. Of the 46 recommendations stay in Grenfell Tower in that way. A senior Member of made in the inquiry’s first report, 12 were addressed to this House has raised doubts about whether it is sensible the Government directly, with 11 requiring legislative to stay. If a fire is known to be occurring, people will try changes. They relate primarily to a number of prescriptive to exit the tower block. safety measures and checks, to be undertaken by building owners and managers. The Prime Minister accepted the Any review of the stay put policy will look at the way principle of these recommendations on publication of that evacuation procedures, alarm systems and sprinkler the report in October last year. systems worked. Recommendations coming out of the Grenfell inquiry should be reflected in the Bill. That is Subject to the outcome of the consultation, our my only point. intention is to deliver, where possible, the Grenfell inquiry recommendations through secondary legislation under the fire safety order. Where an amendment to the order Kit Malthouse: The amendments seek broad delegated is required through primary legislation, we intend to do powers to amend key articles of the fire safety order: that in the building safety Bill. That Bill will also cover articles 2 to 22, in parts 1 and 2 of the order, which the consequential amendments that will be required to relate to the interpretation of the order and to fire the fire safety order to ensure that the Bill, when enacted, safety duties; and article 38, a miscellaneous article and the order align and interact with each other. We will relating to a further duty on the responsible person to ensure that the legal frameworks and supporting guidance concern themselves with the maintenance of measures provide clarity for those operating in this area, and for the protection of firefighters. The amendments also bring about the outcomes sought across the fire and seek to enable changes to be made to the fire safety building safety landscape. order by secondary legislation, rather than primary legislation, that are consequential to changes made by The hon. Member for Croydon Central mentioned other regulations. The amendments build on the delegated having a single point of responsibility, and that is very power in clause 2 of the Bill, under which it is proposed much on our minds. Intensive work is going on between that the order can be amended for the purpose of the Home Office and the Ministry of Housing, changing or clarifying the premises to which it applies, Communities and Local Government, and with the and can allow for consequential provision to be made. I wider sector, to ensure that there is no confusion as to have already set out the purpose and limitations of that who is the responsible individual. power. One of the key principles that came out of Dame The fire safety order already has a delegated power Carol’s review—I mean Dame Judith’s review; Dame under article 24, which enables the Secretary of State to Carol’s review is about drugs, which is also within my make regulations on the precautions that are to be portfolio—was the need for the point of responsibility taken or observed in relation to the risk to relevant to be transparent and known to everybody. It is a key 43 Public Bill Committee 25 JUNE 2020 Fire Safety Bill 44 part of the proposals, and I have no doubt that it will Hammersmith—I am not sure he will be pleased—and form part of the consultation and, therefore, the legislation former leader of the London Borough of Hammersmith that will follow. and Fulham is now the joint Minister between the Sir Gary, I hope that explanation is enough to allow Home Office and the Ministry of Housing, Communities the Committee to be content for the amendment to be and Local Government. He has responsibility for fire, withdrawn. albeit in the Lords, which is why I am here today. Question put and agreed to. The Chair: We will see. Clause 2 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Sarah Jones: We say the same things on both sides of Clause 3 the Committee, but we on the Opposition side want speedy action, and we have been frustrated by the EXTENT, COMMENCEMENT AND SHORT TITLE delays. It would be reassuring if we could have some kind of timetable before the summer recess for when the building safety Bill will be introduced. There is a whole Sarah Jones: I beg to move amendment 6, in raft of other activities, and we do not know when they clause 3, page 2, line 25, after “may” insert “not”. will be coming forward—and covid is no reason for This amendment seeks to ensure that the Bill be brought into force at these things not to come forward. the same time for all buildings it will apply to, rather than adopting a staged approach that may make arbitrary distinctions between similar This morning, Matt Wrack asked where responsibility premises. for some of these issues rests in Government, and I This amendment is slightly controversial, in that there wonder whether the split between MHCLG and the are different ways to interpret it. It seeks to ensure that Home Office compounds some of the problems with the Bill is brought into force at the same time for all the how these things fit together and work. The more buildings that it will apply to, rather than us adopting a information we have about the timetable, the better. It staged approach that may make arbitrary distinctions would be good if the Minister could take these matters between similar premises. Some might have concerns away; I know officials are looking at how they will sit about the amendment; the National Housing Federation— together. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the only organisation that responded to all the amendments the amendment. in writing, which is very impressive—is worried that if Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. we bring everything into the scope of the Bill straight Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the away, there will be a capacity issue. I understand that, Bill. but I will explain the thinking behind the amendment. I have heard from several organisations that the Home Sarah Jones: I will be brief. I want to make a point Office was looking at perhaps bringing into scope buildings about finances and resources, and it seems fitting to over 18 metres first, and then other types of buildings. mention that as we debate clause 2. We heard a lot of The view put to me was that that is slightly arbitrary evidence this morning about the need for proper resourcing. and not the best way to approach the issue. We heard We heard from L&Q about the extraordinary amount this morning about the risk-based approach, which had of money that it and its colleagues will have to spend in its infancy and was undertaken excellently in my borough the housing association sector on removing cladding. of Croydon, rather than people there saying, “We will Although the Government’s £1 billion fire safety fund is do this set of buildings first and then this set of buildings.” welcome, that will not be anywhere near enough. People who knew what they were doing were trusted to As for enforcement of the legislation, the fire service look first at the areas that were most problematic. has had significant cuts, as was outlined excellently in the Fire Brigades Union’s written evidence to the 3 pm Committee, particularly around inspection, where we I suspect that the Minister will say, “We have set up a need to beef up the resources. We will need a lot more task and finish group that will look at how all of this fire risk assessors. We will have to try to fund all that. works,” but I think it important to make the point in There is a point to be made about what the Home Office Committee that we do not want an arbitrary approach has done about the cost, because the resources are not or something that will take years. We potentially face anywhere near enough. That is all I want to say, but it is the need to carry out risk assessments for hundreds of a really important point that the Government will have thousands of buildings, which will take time. The best to grapple with. approach is to look at it through the eyes of the experts who will decide how to manage that challenge, which is Kit Malthouse: I recognise Members’ impatience for why we tabled the amendment. us to get the measure through as quickly as possible and to put the new regime in place, not least because it will Kit Malthouse: We acknowledge that clarification of take time to bed in. There will be not only structural the scope of the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order change, but cultural change in various parts of the 2005 will represent operational change for many,particularly building safety world. The Bill is a start. There will be a responsible persons, who, as the hon. Lady said, will consultation shortly. The Bill will be scrutinised before need to update their fire risk assessments to include the summer recess. There will be a flurry of activity. On external walls and flat entrance doors. The Bill will also the point made by the hon. Member for Croydon Central have an impact on the fire sector, fire risk assessors and aboutcoherencebetweenDepartments,asHousingMinister other competent professionals, such as fire engineers, I recognise that issue, and she will be pleased to know who are needed to assist the responsible person in that the old sparring partner of the hon. Member for complying with the order. 45 Public Bill Committee HOUSE OF COMMONS Fire Safety Bill 46

[Kit Malthouse] because that is not set out in the Bill. There is a lot of uncertainty, and we are putting a lot of faith in the We acknowledge that there are capacity and capability experts and in the Minister to get this done as quickly as issues, particularly in relation to assessing the risk for possible, but I beg to ask leave to withdrawthe amendment. external walls. This is not just the Government speaking, Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. but a number of organisations from the fire sector, local Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the authorities and housing associations. The Government Bill. are committed to ensuring that we commence the Bill in a way that is workable across the system, while ensuring that swift action is taken to address the most significant Sarah Jones: Very briefly—although, we are now fire safety risks. doing well for time—I want to reiterate the point about That is why, as I mentioned this morning, we have the Bill not having a date for when the new requirements established a task and finish group—co-chaired by the will come into force, aside from what is implemented Fire Sector Federation and the National Fire Chiefs and when. The Bill allows the Secretary of State to Council—that will be responsible for providing a choose a date that is considered appropriate, and that recommendation on how the Bill should be commenced. makes us uncomfortable. Again, we need to do this as The group will advise on the optimal way to meet the quickly as possible, because these are literally matters of Bill’s objective of improving the identification assessment life and death. That is the biggest issue with the clause; of fire risks in multi-occupied blocks and addressing other than that, I am happy. them as soon as possible to ensure resident safety while also effectively managing any operational impact. Kit Malthouse: Thank you, Mr Streeter—Sir Gary. The task and finish group is made up of representatives [HON.MEMBERS: “Hear, hear.”] I apologise. Again, I from the early adopters group on building safety at the acknowledge the impatience. It is worth remembering Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government; that the Bill is a technical clarification of a fire safety private sector developers; the fire sector; the NFCC; order that should be functioning well in the vast majority and a number of fire and rescue services. The group is of circumstances. Although there are respectable views expected to report no later than the end of September. about disagreements on definition within the order, It is tasked with providing a recommendation based on which is why we are seeking to clarify it, in the end there an assessment of the evidence and on their knowledge is still someone out there who has responsibility for and expertise, which the hon. Member for Croydon safety in all these buildings. Although I recognise the Central said was preferable. impatience of the hon. Lady and other hon. Members to get it under way—we share their impatience—I would We expect that recommendation to address how the give that background. highest-risk buildings should be prioritised for assessment of the composition of, and risk associated with, their The task and finish group should be reporting by the cladding systems. Ministers will consider the advice and end of September. There will be more consultation make a final decision. The amendment would remove legislation on the way. I realise that the hon. Lady is the ability to make regulations that enable the Bill’s suffering a little from consultation fatigue. Nevertheless, provisions to be commenced on different days for different these are complex issues dealing with effectively unravelling purposes. That is, it removes the possibility of using and reknitting a huge system of building safety regulation regulations to ensure a staged commencement. I make that has grown up over many decades and needs wholescale no comment on whether and how the commencement reform. It is therefore no surprise that if we want to get might be staged, but the Government will not prejudge this right for the future and avoid any possibility of a the advice of the task and finish group, or support any future Grenfell, we need to ensure that we do the restrictions on the ability of the Secretary of State and detailed work, which is what we are trying to do—hence Welsh Ministers to make informed decisions about when this foundation stone today. and how regulations are made to commence the provisions Question put and agreed to. in the Bill. Clause 3 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. I am particularly conscious that this morning the hon. Lady raised the issue of individuals who might, because of a sudden commencement, find themselves in New Clause 1 some kind of limbo, and be unable to undertake property transactions for many years, given the scale of what is PUBLIC REGISTER OF FIRE RISK ASSESSMENTS required. Notwithstanding that risk is the primary concern, “(1) The Secretary of State must, by regulations, make some of those issues will have to be taken into consideration. provision for a register of fire risk assessments made under I hope that gives the Committee a suitable explanation article 9 (risk assessment) of the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) as to why the amendment should be withdrawn. Order 2005 (SI 2005/1541). (2) Those regulations must provide that the register is— (a) publicly available; and Sarah Jones: I will withdraw the amendment on the basis that there will be a task and finish group, but I (b) kept up-to-date. stress that we have had a lot of groups, conversations (3) Regulations under this section are— and consultations. In my previous role in housing, we (a) to be made by statutory instrument; and had 60 consultations on leasehold reform, yet we still (b) subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of do not have leasehold reform. We need to push this either House of Parliament.”—(Daisy Cooper.) forward. Having some sense of when the Bill will commence This new clause would enable would-be renters and owners to check the and how it will be implemented would be helpful. It fire safety status of their potential home, like the EPC register. would also be helpful to know the implementation date, Brought up, and read the First time. 47 Public Bill Committee 25 JUNE 2020 Fire Safety Bill 48

Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD): I beg to move, That now require the ESW1 certificate before lending. Feedback the clause be read a Second time. from my constituents, from management agencies and from local government indicates that there is a severe The Chair: With this it will be convenient to discuss shortage of professionals across the country who are the following: insured to sign off the new survey. A new public register New clause 2—Public register of fire risk assessors— would not only help to build trust, but show Government “(1) The Secretary of State must, by regulations, make and industry how many fire assessors we need to train. provision for a register of individuals who are qualified to make From the questions we asked this morning, it was clear fire risk assessments under article 9 (risk assessment) of the that the current number of assessors is between 400 and Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 (SI 2005/1541). 50,000. Those were the numbers we were given, which is (2) Those regulations must provide that only persons on the why it is so important that we have a public register and register may make such assessments. that we have it now. (3) Those regulations must provide that the register is— My constituents have told me about delays of between (a) publicly available; and 12 and 18 months in getting ESW1 surveys, putting (b) kept up-to-date. their lives on hold and leaving them in constant fear of (4) Regulations under this section are— living in a dangerous home. That is made all the worse (a) to be made by statutory instrument; and for my female constituents who are pregnant and living (b) subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of in such homes, as well as those who fear a loss of either House of Parliament.” income as we head into a pandemic recession. This new clause would enable home owners to verify fire assessors My final point is that there is a precedent for both qualified to conduct compulsory checks such as completing the EWS1 these public registers. We have a register for homes, in form, and would enable government and industry to assess the numbers the form of the energy performance certificate, which of assessors to be trained. operates in the same way. EPC certificates are publicly New clause 7—Accreditation of fire risk assessors— available on a Ministry of Housing, Communities and “The relevant authority must by regulations amend the Local Government website. There is a register for domestic Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 (SI 2005/1541) to energy assessors and for energy performance certificates, require fire risk assessors for any building which contains two or so there is a precedent for such registers to exist. It is a more sets of domestic premises to be accredited.” simple proposal that could be adopted in exactly the This new clause would require fire risk assessors to be accredited. same way, but for fire safety, which, from a safety perspective, is far more vital. Daisy Cooper: New clauses 1 and 2, which stand in my name, are fairly self-explanatory. They both call for a public register: one for assessments, and the other for Sarah Jones: Thank you, Sir Gary—I did wonder assessors. The Hackitt review said that risk assessments whether that was the correct way to address you when should not only be held by building owners, but be kept you are in the Chair. I also forgot to say, “It is a pleasure centrally with a public body such as a Government- to serve under your chairmanship.” appointed regulator. Chapter 4 of the Hackitt review refers to The Chair: It never is. [Laughter.] “the need to rebuild public trust by creating a system where residents feel informed and included in discussions on safety, rather than a system where they are ‘done to’ by others… The Sarah Jones: It is good to get these things right. interim report recommended that fire risk assessments should be I welcome the two new clauses proposed by the hon. carried out annually and shared in an accessible way with residents.” Member for St Albans, who speaks for the Liberal For something as vital as fire safety, that information Democrats. We are coming from the same place and we should be readily accessible to current and prospective all accept that having fire risk assessors who are not residents of the building, both for public trust and for necessarily qualified in any way is completely unacceptable. the sake of enforcement. Of course, the most accessible We need to get to grips with that for many reasons, way to present such assessments is on a public register. including those that she mentioned. If the Government are not minded to support new The register of fire risk assessments is slightly challenging clause 1, I would welcome assurances that they intend because it would take a long time to get the assessments, to introduce such a public register at some point. to get it up and running and to get it done. That may be New clause 2 would create a public register for fire something for the future, but not now. Having a public risk assessors. Of the two clauses that I have tabled, this register of fire risk assessors is a way of dealing with the is by far the more urgent. We heard shocking evidence problem. It is similar to our new clause 7, which is this morning from the FBU that there are still people about having an accreditation system for fire risk assessors. calling themselves fire assessors who are going out and That is probably one of the most important elements of conducting fire assessments without being qualified to our concern, and it was raised by Members on both do so. The witness gave the example of a member of the sides of the House on Second Reading. I raised that union who died in a building that had reportedly been concern in a conversation with the Minister and Lord assessed by one of these non-qualified fire assessors. We Greenhalgh when I was first appointed, and I know that cannot wait for the public register of fire risk assessors; the Government are looking at it. we need it now. The practice by those who are not It is remarkable that there is currently no legal duty qualified must stop. to have any kind of qualification before becoming a fire In 2018 the London Fire Brigade raised the issue of risk assessor. It could be argued that some parts of the assessor numbers. The Fire Safety Federation talked role are relatively straightforward, such as checking about fears that there were overwhelming demands for whether there are obstructions in the way of fire exits. ESW1 surveys. It is clear that most mortgage companies The Bill introduces the need for an understanding of 49 Public Bill Committee HOUSE OF COMMONS Fire Safety Bill 50

[Sarah Jones] professionalising it and taking it seriously. Having said that, they would create another requirement to be actioned the nature of cladding; what it is made of and how it by the Government. Whether the Government accept works. There is absolutely no way someone could assess the new clauses or not, I am sure that they wish to see that without being qualified. fire risk assessments and mediation carried out properly Concerns have been raised for many years about and efficiently. private sector involvement, lack of qualification and a We heard evidence this morning from the Fire Safety “race to the bottom” mentality. The fact that anyone Federation and the head of fire safety at the L&Q can set up as a fire risk assessor to assess schools or care Group about how the system is working—or not homes cannot be defended. working—in practice. Whether the Minister accepts the requirements, we seriously need to address the current 3.15 pm investigation process. I say this with no disrespect to the Kit Malthouse: It is shocking. witnesses, but I was not filled with confidence by them saying that the processes of assessment must be looked Sarah Jones: I agree; it is shocking. at, with is done either through the enforcers, the owners We have all seen examples, and one was given to us and the Government coming together,or through everyone this morning. In 2017 an independent fire risk assessor doing their own bit, because it is simply not working at was given a four-month jail sentence when a court the moment. described his assessment of a Cheshire care home as I gave the example, which I will briefly amplify, of a “woefully inadequate”. In the same year, a private hire block of some 400-plus flats owned by Notting Hill safety consultant was found to have given valueless risk Genesis, a big housing association in London, with assessments to several businesses in south Wales, putting which some issues to be resolved have been found. people at serious risk of death because of poor escape Those issues are not the most serious issues; there is routes, a lack of fire alarms and insufficient precautions some timber construction and some cladding on the to reduce fire and the spread of fire. In 2012 a fire risk building. Most of the building is constructed of brick. assessor in Nottingham was fined £15,000 after it was The effect was that the building perhaps did not have as found that fire precautions in two hotels he assessed high a priority as more dangerous structures. The effect were inadequate, potentially putting hundreds of lives of that has been to set out for all residents, including at risk. I suspect there is much inadequacy that we do those leaseholders who have sold or are trying to sell not know about because it has not come to light. their properties, a process that goes through six separate Therefore, what do we do about this? We propose a stages: initial survey,survey review,developer engagement, fire risk assessor accreditation system. There are ways project planning, specification and tender, and remedial of easily mapping skill levels and the competence of works. That process could take as little as 16 months or individuals that are used across many sectors. We could up to 42 months, and only at the end of it would an look at those and work with the experts to find the right EWS1 form be issued. I thought that was bad enough, balance. For many years, the further education sector but we heard from the head of fire safety at L&Q that has used regulated qualifications to train the workforce. they expect it to be 10 years before all the buildings in Vocational qualifications, which have been around for London are dealt with. many years, have been the main way of demonstrating that an individual has met a certain standard. I spoke at That situation cannot be allowed to continue, so I ask length to the chief executive of the British Woodworking the Minister to ensure, when he looks at the issues Federation, who sits on the Build UK WG2 competence raised by the new clauses, that we have competent and of installers working group in Government, which is professional assessment of risk, and proper processes to looking at some of these issues and mapping the carry out those assessments. We must also look at the competence of an installer following the Hackitt review. speed at which that work is done, because the Government It is looking at third-party certification routes, continuous have found it necessary during the covid crisis, and professional development and different things that would previously during the housing crisis, which we see be possible. There are relatively straightforward options particularly in London but which exists generally across through the Health and Safety Executive, Ofqual—there the country, to intervene with measures that help people are all sorts of ways to do this. either to get on the housing ladder, to upscale or to In anticipation that the Minister might not accept the move; there need to be different types of packages in new clause, I ask him to take this matter seriously and that regard. accept that there is a problem that we must do something That is needed here and now. This matter cannot be about. I also ask him to see it in the round with what on left to the relationship between leaseholders or tenants earth happens if it takes a long period of time to try to and their landlords or owners at the end of the building build up workforce expertise, with people potentially process; it must be for the Government to address. living in buildings without the piece of paper that tells Otherwise, in what is already an extremely depressed them they can get insurance and mortgages, as the hon. and fractured housing market, this situation will cause Member for St Albans said. This job must be done— further delay and misery. It is not just a case of people whether it is done now is for the Minister to decide—and being forced to stay in properties that they do not want it must be done sooner rather than later, to avoid deaths to stay in—they want to move, perhaps because their in the future. family is growing, or because they want to take up a job in another part of the country. This situation is causing Andy Slaughter: I agree with these sensible new clauses, real financial and social distress.That may be an unintended because they would remedy the defects identified by the consequence of what is designed to be an efficient process, FBU and others in how the system currently works, by but the process is simply not working at the moment. 51 Public Bill Committee 25 JUNE 2020 Fire Safety Bill 52

Kit Malthouse: My role on this Committee is obviously Tosummarise, the right approach is for the Government becoming clear: it is to manage Members’ legitimate first to consider the proposals of the competency steering desire for urgent action and change, and to indicate that group and its sub-groups in relation to a register of fire there is a process we need to go through in order to get risk assessors and accreditation. The Government’sposition this matter exactly right. I find myself in that position is that that work should continue to be led and progressed once again. by the industry. I am happy to state on the record that The fire safety order establishes a self-compliance we will work with the industry to develop it. Any future regime. There is currently no requirement for responsible statutory requirements on fire risk assessors might be persons to record their completed fire risk assessments, achieved through secondary legislation, which will offer save for limited provisions in respect of employers. They us greater flexibility to add to it or amend it in the are simply required to record the significant findings of future. For those reasons, I intend to resist these new the assessment and any group of persons identified by clauses. the assessment as being especially at risk. The creation Daisy Cooper: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the of a fire risk assessment register will place a new level of motion. regulation upon responsible persons that could be seen Clause, by leave, withdrawn. as going against the core principles of the order, notably its self-regulatory and non-prescriptive approach. New Clause 2 There is also a question of ownership and maintenance, PUBLIC REGISTER OF FIRE RISK ASSESSORS and where the costs of such a register would lie. A “(1) The Secretary of State must, by regulations, make delicate balance needs to be struck. There are certainly provision for a register of individuals who are qualified to make improvements to be made, but we also need to ensure fire risk assessments under article 9 (risk assessment) of the that such improvements are proportionate. Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 (SI 2005/1541). The Government acknowledge that there is work to (2) Those regulations must provide that only persons on the be done to ensure that residents have access to the vital register may make such assessments. fire safety information they need in order to be safe and (3) Those regulations must provide that the register is— feel safe in their homes. People need to be assured that a (a) publicly available; and suitable and sufficient fire risk assessment has been (b) kept up-to-date. completed, and that all appropriate general precautions (4) Regulations under this section are— have been taken or will be taken. (a) to be made by statutory instrument; and (b) subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of I also say to potential buyers of leasehold flats that either House of Parliament.”—(Daisy Cooper.) any good conveyancing solicitor would ask for sight of This new clause would enable home owners to verify fire assessors the fire risk assessment from the responsible person—the qualified to conduct compulsory checks such as completing the EWS1 freeholder—as part of their pre-contract inquiries. If form, and would enable government and industry to assess the numbers the assessment was not forthcoming, one would expect of assessors to be trained. that the solicitor would advise their clients accordingly Brought up, and read the First time. and that all due inferences would be made. I can assure Question put, That the clause be read a Second time. the Committee that the fire safety consultation will The Committee divided: Ayes 6, Noes 9. bring forward proposals for the recording of the fire Division No. 1] risk assessment and the provision of vital fire safety information to residents. AYES New clause 2 would create a public register of fire Buck, Ms Karen Eshalomi, Florence risk assessors and require the fire risk assessors to be Cooper, Daisy Jones, Sarah Duffield, Rosie Slaughter, Andy accredited. I agree that there is a clear need for reform concerning fire risk assessors, to improve capacity and standards. I understand the probing nature of the new NOES clause, so it may be helpful to outline work that is Bacon, Gareth Moore, Damien ongoing in the area of fire risk assessor capacity and Britcliffe, Sara Saxby, Selaine capability. Lewer, Andrew Longhi, Marco Simmonds, David Some hon. Members will be aware of the industry-led Malthouse, Kit Tomlinson, Michael competency steering group and its working group on fire risk assessors. The group will soon publish a report, including proposals for creating a register, third-party Question accordingly negatived. accreditation and a competency framework for fire risk assessors. The Government will consider the report’s New Clause 3 recommendations in detail.

Weare working with the NFCC and the fire risk assessor PROHIBITION ON PASSING REMEDIATION COSTS ONTO sector to take forward plans for addressing the short-term LEASEHOLDERS AND TENANTS and long-term capability and capacity issues within the “The owner of a building must not pass the costs of sector. I share hon. Members’ alarm at the existence of making any remedial work attributable to the provisions unqualified fire risk assessors; one wonders how many of this Act on to any leaseholders or tenants of that decades this situation has been allowed to persist unnoticed building.”—(Daisy Cooper.) by anybody in this House or by any Government of any The purpose of this new clause is to stop freeholders passing on hue. The fire safety consultation, which will be issued remediation costs to leaseholders and tenants, such as through demands shortly—I have already committed to that—will bring for one-off payments or increases in service or other charges. forward proposals on competence issues. Brought up, and read the First time. 53 Public Bill Committee HOUSE OF COMMONS Fire Safety Bill 54

Daisy Cooper: I beg to move, That the clause be read I agree with the premise of the new clause proposed a Second time. by the hon. Member for St Albans, but having been the New clause 3, by my own admission, is a rather blunt shadow housing Minister for three years, looking at the instrument—I put that down to the fact that I joined issues of leasehold and freehold and working with the the Committee at rather short notice last week. I would Law Commission and with lawyers to try to unpick not want to invite the law of unintended consequences, some of the legal issues, I think that it would be a which the new clause does slightly, and prohibit people challenging new clause to accept as it is, without significant from paying towards something that might actually help compensation having to go to freeholders. I think the them to move house if they wanted to do so. The hon. Lady is probably right to describe it as being a purpose of the new clause is to seek to draw the blunt instrument, but I agree about the impossible Government’s attention to the question of who has position of leaseholders being faced with more costs financial responsibility. It is one that we discussed this when they are struggling so much. morning,andtowhichtherewerenoclearrecommendations or answers from those who gave evidence. Andy Slaughter: I applaud the hon. Member for The Bill puts the onus for fire safety on the building St Albans for bringing the matter to the Committee’s owner, but not enough has been said about who should attention, although the new clause may not quite be the take the financial burden of the measures that follow. way to deal with the issue in law. I say that because The fact is that, despite the responsibility of the freeholder, although Government have made funds available in a building insurance premiums that residents may have drip by drip way—it is quite a substantial amount of paid for years, valid nuclear new build warranties, financial money, so perhaps drip by drip is the wrong phrase—it burden—all those things—it has been shifted and shirked, is an inadequate sum to deal with the necessary remediation. and ultimately the financial burden seems to land upon The way in which the funding relating to ACM and their tenants and leaseholders. other types of cladding has been announced to social In my constituency of St Albans, one residents’ landlords and then private landlords has not only created association has been told that every individual leaseholder some degree of confusion, but meant that there are will probably face extra charges of around at least huge gaps in terms of accessibility to funds to leaseholders £20,000 each per flat. Some of their service charges and freeholders for carrying out remediation work. have already increased sixfold since the tragedy of 2017. Therefore, landlords—not the worst landlords, necessarily; Those service charges have increased in preparation for in some ways, it could be the better ones—are seeking the necessary works, and I hope that the Government to deal with remediation works in relation to blocks will agree that in a property market that is already so that do not fall within the fairly restrictive criteria that financially challenging, with the pandemic recession the Government have set. They are saying, “Yes, we will just ahead of us, to be hit by a further bill of £20,000 is remove cladding, or do other works, but it isn’t covered completely unacceptable and, for some, completely by the Government’s building funds at the moment. We impossible. will therefore look, with section 20 notices or in other ways, for leaseholders to carry the costs.” 3.30 pm We are right to draw attention to this point, and I More needs to be done to protect those leaseholders, hope that the Minister will respond to it. He has been and others like them around the country, from being reading out his ministerial brief, which is all to the good totally and utterly financially crippled. We heard from because we need to put it on the record, but it would be the National Fire Chiefs Council that disputes over the quite good for him to respond to some of the points liability for remediation costs are very likely without spontaneously made by Opposition Members. access to funding. We heard from the L&Q Group this morning that the Government should exhaust all options before passing the costs on to leaseholders, and that The Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty’s Treasury that needs to be done ideally through Government (Michael Tomlinson): My hon. Friend has done both support. There seemed to be a lot of consensus that without Government support we will end up with very Andy Slaughter: I say that because, in the previous complicated lease arrangements. debate, there were issues to do with the speed at which My constituents, and many others around the country, the process is going, and I do not think the Minister are in a completely impossible position. They are struggling responded to my points about that nor to those about to, or cannot, extend their mortgage to pay this large the qualifications of assessors. If he intends to resist the one-off fee. However, they also cannot sell their flat new clause, which I suspect he probably is, he needs to without the EWS1 certificate. They feel trapped in an deal with the issue of leaseholders who, faced with the unsafe building, while having to try to find the funds to prospect of bills, cannot then be advised “Go to the pay the escalating service charges that they simply cannot Government funds”, because such funds are not available afford. That simply cannot be right. for those purposes. Sarah Jones: I want to put on record our support for the notion that leaseholders have been incredibly hard The Chair: I call on the Minister to read out his brief. done by in recent years. They are championing their [Laughter.] cause through incredibly powerful campaign groups, and we have heard over the past three years of the costs Kit Malthouse: Sir Gary, the hon. Member for that have been put on them to remove cladding. It is Hammersmith knows the impositions put on Ministers extraordinary. In new clause 4, I try to ensure that they of the Crown as to what they can and cannot say in are not part of the definition of the responsible person public. Legal interpretations emanate from their words, in the legislation. such is the importance of the things that we say in this 55 Public Bill Committee 25 JUNE 2020 Fire Safety Bill 56 place, and many legal cases have been decided on the £1.6 billion available to cover the costs, particularly words, imprecise or otherwise, of a Government Minister where experts say that they represent the highest risk, in a Committee such as this, so we try very hard to be and we are working with industry to identify what precise. I should point out that, although I previously funding structures would be most appropriate to help had responsibility for this portfolio when I was Housing cover the cost of further remediation work. Leaseholders Minister, I am covering for a Minister who is shielding should not have to face unmanageable costs. The Secretary at the moment. Hence I have to make sure that the of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government words I use are broadly those that he would use as well. will provide an update on the work when he presents the draft building safety Bill to Parliament before the recess. I ask that Members recognise the complexity of this Andy Slaughter rose— policy area, which cannot be solved, I am afraid, through the new clause. Indeed, it would make owners who, in The Chair: Mr. Slaughter is going to apologise. some cases, would include leaseholders, responsible for funding any and all remediation work. For example, Andy Slaughter: I was seeking to flatter the Minister. service and maintenance charges would at present meet We not only want to hear from the civil servants; we the costs of safety work required as a result of routine also want to hear from him. wear and tear, such as worn fire door closers. Under the new clause, those costs would fall to building owners. I hope that hon. Members will agree there are more Kit Malthouse: Notwithstanding the fact that the effective ways of achieving the same aim, which we all hon. Member for St Albans obviously recognises that share, and I therefore hope this clause can be withdrawn. this blunt instrument, as she put it, might result in unintended consequences, not least driving a coach and Daisy Cooper: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the horses through the notion of privacy of contract, which motion. is a fundamental part of our economy and legal system, I recognise her aspiration and the obvious concern and Clause, by leave, withdrawn. distress that there has been across the country among people who have been caught in the nightmare. As the New Clause 4 hon. Member for Croydon Central knows, as Housing Minister for 12 months I wrestled with that issue and MEANING OF RESPONSIBLE PERSON lobbied the then Chancellor of the Exchequer with “In article 3 of the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order increasing ferocity that the Government should step in 2005 (SI 2005/1541) (meaning of responsible person”), at the end to assist, which we have now done. My efforts, along of paragraph (b)(ii) insert— with those of my right hon. Friend the Member for Old ‘(2) Where a building contains two or more sets of domestic Bexley and Sidcup (James Brokenshire), who was then premises, a leaseholder shall not be considered a responsible the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and person unless they are also the owner or part owner of the Local Government, managed to secure the first £600 million freehold.’”—(Sarah Jones.) of the £1.6 billion now pledged for remediation of various This new clause aims to clarify the definition of ‘responsible person’ to types of cladding. ensure leaseholders are not considered a responsible person unless they I should point out that the funding does not absolve are also the owner or part owner of the freehold. the industry from taking responsibility for any failings Brought up, and read the First time. that led to unsafe cladding materials being put on buildings in the first place. We still expect developers, Sarah Jones: I beg to move, That the clause be read a investors and building owners who have the means to Second time. pay to take responsibility and cover the cost of remediation themselves without passing on the cost to leaseholders. The Chair: With this it will be convenient to discuss We committed in a recent Government response to the new clause 5—Single assessment of risk— building safety consultation to extend the ability of local authorities and the new regulators to enforce “In article 9 of the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 (SI 2005/1541) (risk assessment), after paragraph (3) against building work that does not comply with the insert— building regulations from two years to 10 years. Further ‘(3A) Where a building contains two or more domestic details will be set out in the draft building safety Bill premises, any person identified as a responsible person in relation when it is published next month. The new regime in that to any part of the building must co-operate with other Bill is being introduced to prevent such safety defects responsible persons to obtain a single assessment of risk relating from occurring in the first place in new builds and to to the building as a whole.’” address systematically the defects in existing buildings. This new clause seeks to create a requirement that, where a building Moreover, as part of any funding agreement with contains two or more domestic premises and there are multiple Government, we expect building owners to pursue warranty responsible persons, a fire risk assessment should be a single document claims and appropriate action against those responsible in instances. for putting unsafe cladding on the buildings. In doing that we are not only ensuring that buildings are made Sarah Jones: New clause 4 also relates to leaseholders, safe and that residents feel safe, and are safe, we are and I think what it proposes is quite straightforward, ensuring that the taxpayer does not pay for the work easy to do and something that the Government could that those responsible should fund or can afford. put on the face of the Bill relatively easily. I appreciate the intent of the new clause, particularly On Second Reading, the definition of a responsible to protect leaseholders from the very high cost of removing person was raised again by Members from across the and replacing cladding. That is why we have made House. There were worries about the ambiguity of that 57 Public Bill Committee HOUSE OF COMMONS Fire Safety Bill 58

[Sarah Jones] enforcement actions. The NFCC has offered to support these considerations; again, the fire safety consultation definition, and about the risk that the responsible person is the right place for us to take such matters further. The might seek to use any such confusion or ambiguity to Government are committed to ensuring that sufficient avoid their responsibilities under the Bill. There is a guidance and support is given to those regulated by the worry that leaseholders might be defined as the responsible order. That is why the Home Office, working alongside person, which they are not unless leaseholders have our stakeholders, has established a guidance steering collectively bought the freehold; that model is not used group that will be responsible for recommending, much, but it does exist. The point of this new clause is co-ordinating and delivering a robust and effective review simply to ensure that unless that model exists—unless of all the guidance provided under the order. leaseholders have bought the freehold—leaseholders are not the responsible person. It is a relatively 3.45 pm straightforward clause, and I cannot see that it would Article 9 of the fire safety order currently requires all cause any problems. responsible persons or duty holders to complete a “suitable I suspect that new clause 5 is a probing one, because and sufficient” fire risk assessment to ensure the fire there are many complex types of buildings, with different safety of the premises for which they are responsible. types of ownership within them. A block may well Where there are multiple responsible persons in one contain council housing, housing associations, leaseholders, premises, the order requires them to co-operate and and—although not part of the Bill—commercial premises co-ordinate with all other persons in order to enable within residential premises. All those different types of compliance ownership within a block creates a complex situation “with the requirements and prohibitions imposed on them by or when it comes to making the “responsible person” under” responsible for ensuring the safety assessment is done the fire safety order. A responsible person is also required for the entire building. This clause is a question and to challenge to the Government: how will the Bill work “take all reasonable steps to inform the other responsible persons when we have all these levels of complexity, including concerned of the risks to relevant persons arising out of or in commercial premises, different types of residential premises connection with the conduct by him of his undertaking.” and different problems with access? This relates in part I wish I could extemporise the technical detail for the to some of the issues we were talking about this morning, hon. Member for Hammersmith; sadly, even that is such as getting access to domestic properties, but there beyond me. The intention of the articles is to ensure a are blocks in my constituency where half of the block is suitable and sufficient fire risk assessment is completed housing association, and half is a mix of all kinds of that considers and accounts for the impact that other other private housing. We are worried about how that is parts of the premises may have on the fire safety of the going to work in real life when this legislation is introduced, building as a whole. From the responses to the 2019 call so that is the point of new clause 5. for evidence, we acknowledge the difficulties faced by responsible persons in complying with the duty to Kit Malthouse: The fire safety order places the onus co-operate.Wehave considered in much detail the responses on the responsible person to identify and mitigate fire provided in the call for evidence on co-operation, and risks. For the most part, it engages responsibility for fire we have developed proposals to address these issues. safety in line with the extent of control over a premises The fire safety consultation will set out specific proposals or part of a premises. That is the underlying principle. to address those and other issues raised in the 2019 call In multi-occupied residential buildings, the leaseholder for evidence, and it is of the utmost importance that the of a flat is unlikely to be a responsible person for the fire risk assessments provide robust and accurate non-domestic premises. The exceptions to this would be assessments of the fire safety of a premises as a whole, where they own or share ownership of the freehold, as regulated by the order. That is why we want to ensure is acknowledged in new clause 4. However,the leaseholder that the steps we take are informed by the people they can be a duty holder under article 5 of the order. This will impact, and that they can have a say on how best we will be determined according to the circumstances in can address the issues raised from the call for evidence. I any particular case. This Bill does not change that will, however, ask officials to reflect on the comments arrangement; it does, of course, clarify that the order that have been made this afternoon, and to ensure that applies to the flat entrance doors. Depending on the they and any additional issues that have been raised are terms of a lease or tenancy agreement, responsibility to incorporated in the consultation. On that basis, I hope ensure the door complies with the requirements of the the new clause will be withdrawn. order could therefore fall to the responsible person for the building, having retained ownership of the doors, or Sarah Jones: I feel like we are being beaten down with the tenant or leaseholder as a duty holder. The lease can consultations, steering groups and promises of honey to also be silent. come. I know it is complex and there a lot of questions Legislating for the removal of the leaseholder as a to answer. The basic premise of new clause 4 is that, responsible person, or indeed duty holder,would undermine where there is a freeholder, the leaseholder should not the principles of the order. It could leave a vacuum be the responsible person. I know there are complexities when it comes to responsibilities under the order, and with that: who is responsible for the front door, and therefore compromise fire safety. However, as part of how does it all work? That all needs to be ironed out, our intention to strengthen the fire safety order, we will but there is a basic principle in the new clause. Given the test further some of the relevant current provisions of Minister’s proposal to go back and talk to officials, the order with regards to flat entrance doors in order however, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. to support compliance, co-operation and, if necessary, Clause, by leave, withdrawn. 59 Public Bill Committee 25 JUNE 2020 Fire Safety Bill 60

New Clause 6 Earlier this month, the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government said that the Bill DUTIES OF OWNER OR MANAGER “provides a firm foundation upon which to bring forward secondary “The relevant authority must by regulations amend the legislation”.—[Official Report, 2 June 2020; Vol. 676, c. 41WS.] Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 (SI 2005/1541) to The Minister has taken the same approach, but there is require an owner or a manager of any building which contains no timetable for when everything else will happen. two or more sets of domestic premises to— There are lots of committees, consultations and groups (a) share information with their local Fire and Rescue looking at these things, but it is not acceptable that Service in respect of each building for which an after the promise of “without delay” in October 2019, owner or manager is responsible about the design of its external walls and details of the materials of we still have not moved on those issues by the middle of which those external walls are constructed; summer 2020. (b) in respect of any building for which an owner or I do not understand, and it would be good for Minister manager is responsible which contains separate flats, to explain, why we would not put such provisions in the undertake regular inspections of individual flat Bill. They have the support of the organisations that we entrance doors; heard from this morning. It is just a case of putting (c) in respect of any building for which an owner or things up front in the legislation, rather than waiting for manager is responsible which contains separate flats, an undefined time that may or may not come at some undertake regular inspections of lifts and report the results to their local Fire and Rescue Service; and point in the future. (d) share evacuation and fire safety instructions with The new clause would require an owner or manager residents of the building.”—(Sarah Jones.) to This new clause would place various requirements on building owners or “share information with their local Fire and Rescue Service in managers, and would implement the recommendations made in the respect of each building for which an owner or manager is Grenfell Tower Inquiry Phase One Report. responsible about the design of its external walls and details of Brought up, and read the First time. the materials of which those external walls are constructed…in respect of any building for which an owner or manager is responsible which contains separate flats, undertake regular inspections of Sarah Jones: I beg to move, That the clause be read a individual flat entrance doors…in respect of any building for Second time. which an owner or manager is responsible which contains separate flats, undertake regular inspections of lifts and report the results to their local Fire and Rescue Service; and…share evacuation and The Chair: With this it will be convenient to discuss fire safety instructions with residents of the building.” new clause 9—Inspectors: prioritisation— It just pushes faster and implements more quickly the “In discharging their duties under article 27 of the Regulatory action that the Government have committed to Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 (SI 2005/1541) (powers of inspectors) in relation to any building which contains two or implementing. I press the Government to accept that more sets of domestic premises, an inspector must prioritise the that is possible, or to set out exactly when those things premises which they consider to be at most risk.” will become part of legislation. This new clause would require the schedule for inspecting buildings to be based on a prioritisation of risk, not an arbitrary distinction of types David Simmonds: I have similar feelings about new of buildings. clause 6 as I had about amendment 1. There is a risk that by seeking to be precise, we may create additional Sarah Jones: The new clause does what the Government gaps in the legislation. Looking at the list, it would be say will come later: it puts on the face of the Bill the clear to anybody with experience of the issue in a wider recommendations made in the Grenfell Tower inquiry context that many other issues would come into phase 1 report. At the beginning of June, the MHCLG consideration in such circumstances. announced that it was preparing to open a public For example, the London Borough of Hillingdon consultation on recommendations for new fire safety had to go to court on 16 occasions last year to gain regulations emerging from the Grenfell Tower inquiry. access to tenants’ properties to undertake essential safety- In a letter to Martin Moore-Bick, the Prime Minister critical work on gas installations. If we were to define gave assurances that action on the findings of the the duties that we are placing on the responsible individuals, inquiry’s first report “continues at pace”. However, the list would be extremely long. I have heard the the Government had already promised in October 2019 Minister talk on the issue and I know that, with his to implement the inquiry’s recommendations in full local government experience, he is well aware of the and without delay. Failing to include the simpler context. recommendations for the Bill, such as inspections of fire doors and testing of lifts, is a breach of their The properties to which the legislation will apply are commitment to implement the recommendations without hugely diverse, as are the risks that they offer. I therefore delay. strongly believe that the new clause is another example where we are better off having a broader-brush piece of Only this week we saw alarming statistics that underline legislation that provides the opportunity to catch every the urgency of implementing the recommendations. Of set of circumstances flexibly,rather than being unnecessarily more than 100,000 doors in about 2,700 buildings across specific and risking missing out things that might turn the UK inspected by the fire door inspection scheme in out to be safety-critical. 2019, 76% did not comply with building regulations and about one in six, or 16%, were not even proper fire doors. Nearly two thirds, or 63%, of the buildings also Andy Slaughter: Thank you, Sir Gary. I apologise for had additional fire safety issues. Those are huge challenges. referring to you as Mr Streeter throughout. We need to move as quickly as possible to implement the recommendations. The Chair: You can call me whatever you like. 61 Public Bill Committee HOUSE OF COMMONS Fire Safety Bill 62

Andy Slaughter: I will get it right before the end. there are stages that we need to go through to make sure I have a brief comment about new clause 9, which that we get the measures right and to ensure that the goes to the heart of our discussion. It says that where changes made to building safety will be cultural as well there are as legislative and structural. That is an issue that became “two…sets of domestic premises, an inspector must prioritise the clear during my time as Housing Minister. The entire premises which they consider to be at most risk”. sector has to acknowledge its moral and legal duties for the safety of those in its care, whether that is in the That echoes what Mr Carpenter, the head of fire safety design, building, management or maintenance of properties. at L&Q, said in evidence this morning, and it must be That means we need to make sure everyone is bought in. right. It also mirrors the debate that we are having about covid-19 and the balance between the health On new clause 9, I do not dispute the need to ensure implications and the economic implications. If all our that resources and enforcement activity are targeted, eggs are put into the basket of buildings where there is but I dispute the need for legislation to do so. Fire and believed to be a singular risk or multiple risks, there will rescue authorities are in the business of managing risk be all the consequences we have already discussed relating and are accountable for how they do so. The fire and to delays to sale and so on for buildings with a more rescue national framework for England requires fire marginal risk that nevertheless need remedial work. The and rescue authorities to have a locally determined Government have to grasp that dichotomy and say how risk-based inspection programme in place, for enforcing they propose to deal with it. compliance with the order. It sets out the expectation that FRAs will target their resources on those individuals At the moment individual landlords are dealing with or households at greatest risk from fire in the home and it in their own way. My local authority, for example, has on those non-domestic premises where the life safety gone far beyond what are considered to be minimum risk is greatest. In parallel, the regulators’ code states standards. It has something called a fire safety plus that all regulators should base their regulatory activities programme, which means that fire safety experts visit on risk, take an evidence-based approach to determine tenants to check electrical and fire detection appliances. the priority risks in their area of responsibility, and They replace white goods for free if they are faulty. I allocate resources where they would be most effective in referred earlier to problems with flame failure devices, addressing those priority risks. where gas leaks can occur, and the authority has now incorporated checks of all gas devices into annual boiler We acknowledge the vital work that local FRAs do checks. and the NFCC has done, and will continue to do, to ensure that building owners are taking all necessary Some responsible landlords, and particularly social steps to make sure that those living in high-rise buildings landlords such as Hammersmith and Fulham Council, are safe and feel safe to remain in their homes. take those responsibilities seriously and prioritise those matters. However, that has to happen across the board and not be left to landlords’ good will, as it were, or 4 pm their responsible action. It has to be something that the The building risk review programme, which will see Government enforce. It would be useful to include that all high-rise residential buildings reviewed or inspected with new clause 9 and provide for such prioritisation in by fire and rescue authorities by the end of 2021, is a the relevant circumstances. However—and yes, this is key part of this work. The programme will enable cake-and-eat-it, but this is a cake-and-eat-it Government, building fire risks to be reviewed and data to be collected so I am sure they can incorporate it—we cannot forget to ensure that local resources are targeted at those those tenants or leaseholders who are at the back of the buildings most at risk. It will also provide reassurance queue and who, as Mr Carpenter said at column 14 in to residents that the risks in their buildings have been the first sitting of the Committee, may be waiting assessed and appropriate action has been taken. 10 years for remedial work to take place. I should be We have provided £10 million of funding to support interested to hear the Minister’s response to that—both the work—not only to facilitate the review of all buildings, whether he agrees with the content of new clause 9 with but to support the strengthening of the NFCC central respect to prioritisation, and what he would do as a strategic function to drive improvements in fire protection. consequence. This is in addition to a further £10-million grant to support the bolstering of fire protection capacity and Kit Malthouse: As the hon. Member for Croydon capability within local fire and rescue services. The Central has pointed out, the Prime Minister has accepted funding has been allocated based on the proportion of the outcome of the Grenfell inquiry.However, Sir Martin higher-risk buildings, further demonstrating the need to Moore-Bick’s report stated that his recommendation target resources at the risk. should command the support of those with experience In summary,the Government’sposition is that adequate of the matters to which they relate. That means that we arrangements are in place to ensure that enforcement need to make sure that everyone is on board with the authorities target their resources appropriately and are proposals as we take them forward. accountable for their decisions without the need to Our intention is to enact the proposals, subject to the make it a statutory requirement. I ask that the new views of the consultation, under article 24, which specifically clause be withdrawn. requires the Secretary of State to “consult with such persons or bodies of persons as appear to him Sarah Jones: I hear what the Minister says—there are to be appropriate.” stages that we need to go through to get this right—but Once again I acknowledge the impatience of the hon. the Bill has no date for its commencement, so we could Lady and everyone else in the Committee to get on with put this provision in the Bill and then do the things that it, and get the Grenfell inquiry measures in place, but need to be done in order to bring it into force at the time 63 Public Bill Committee 25 JUNE 2020 Fire Safety Bill 64 that the Secretary of State deems right. Therefore I This new clause would require the UK Government (for England) and would, on this new clause, like to test the will of the the Welsh Government (for Wales) to specify when a waking watch Committee. must be in place for buildings with fire safety failures. Question put, That the clause be read a Second time. Brought up, and read the First time. The Committee divided: Ayes 6, Noes 9. Division No. 2] Sarah Jones: I beg to move, That the clause be read a AYES Second time. Buck, Ms Karen Eshalomi, Florence New clause 8 refers to an issue about waking watch Cooper, Daisy Jones, Sarah that has been raised with us many times by struggling Duffield, Rosie Slaughter, Andy leaseholders. The aim of the new clause is to clarify exactly when a waking watch must be in place and when NOES one should not be. We have seen since Grenfell that this involves a huge number of buildings; tens of thousands Bacon, Gareth Moore, Damien of people are living in blocks where some kind of Britcliffe, Sara Saxby, Selaine remediation work is necessary and so a waking watch Lewer, Andrew Simmonds, David has been put in place. There are lots of concerns about Longhi, Marco waking watch in general. How qualified are the people Malthouse, Kit Tomlinson, Michael doing the job, and are there enough of them? Is it a suitable alternative to the work that needs to be done? Question accordingly negatived. Many leaseholders have told us that there are conflicting New Clause 7 instructions on whether people should have waking watch, depending on where you are and which block ACCREDITATION OF FIRE RISK ASSESSORS you live in. The National Fire Chiefs Council says that “The relevant authority must by regulations amend the waking watch should be temporary,but there are residents Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 (SI 2005/1541) to living in blocks that have had a waking watch for nearly require fire risk assessors for any building which contains two or three years, at huge cost. I have spoken to leaseholders more sets of domestic premises to be accredited.”—(Sarah Jones.) who are paying £14,000 a year for the waking watch. In This new clause would require fire risk assessors to be accredited. one galling case, residents on the block spent £700,000 Brought up, and read the First time. on waking watch, but when the building was tested, it was found to be safe, so they spent a lot of money Sarah Jones: I beg to move, That the clause be read a collectively for something that they never actually needed Second time. in the first place. New clause 7 is about fire assessors being accredited. We will clearly not remove all the cladding that needs Again, I heard what the Minister said: there is the to be removed for some time, given that the issue it is competency steering group; we are going to bring forward not just ACM cladding, but HPL and other forms, too. these kinds of changes. I think that we could be doing Those things take time and we do not have enough that sooner rather than later, so I would like to test the people to do the work. What will happen in that time? will of the Committee on this new clause, too. Do people really have to pay that much money for that Question put, That the clause be read a Second time. long when, in some areas, people are told they need a The Committee divided: Ayes 6, Noes 9. waking watch, and in others, they are not? Other questions Division No. 3] remain about whether people can have other alarm systems that would mean not paying as much. People AYES are going bankrupt paying for something that is supposed Buck, Ms Karen Eshalomi, Florence to be temporary but is not needed or the best thing for Cooper, Daisy Jones, Sarah them to do. Duffield, Rosie Slaughter, Andy Through the new clause,we are saying to the Government that this issue has been raised many times. There is NOES inconsistency about the waking watch and how it is Bacon, Gareth Moore, Damien applied. In any case, it is not supposed to be in place for Britcliffe, Sara Saxby, Selaine only a short period, not three years. The issue was Lewer, Andrew raised by Government Members on Second Reading Longhi, Marco Simmonds, David and has been raised in housing questions for some time. Malthouse, Kit Tomlinson, Michael We want a system where it is clear what waking watch is for and what it is not for, to resolve inconsistencies. Question accordingly negatived. Kit Malthouse: I should start by acknowledging the issue of waking watch. It is obviously very serious. In New Clause 8 my previous position as Housing Minister, I met a number of groups that were struggling to pay for waking WAKING WATCH watch. I will speak later about what the Government are doing to support its proper use. I acknowledge the issue “The relevant authority must by regulations amend the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 (SI 2005/1541) to the hon. Member for Croydon Central raised, and I am specify when a waking watch must be in place for any building sorry for the particular story she pointed to. However, which contains two or more sets of domestic premises and which expanding the scope of the Bill with this new clause is has been found to have fire safety failings.”—(Sarah Jones.) not the best way to achieve what she seeks. 65 Public Bill Committee HOUSE OF COMMONS Fire Safety Bill 66

[Kit Malthouse] responsible person. The issue is that the freeholder is the responsible person, and the leaseholder is the one There are significant issues with the wording of the who has to pay, so there is a problem there. new clause. First, it would introduce a regulation-making I welcome the work that the Government are doing in power that “must” be exercised to amend the fire safety trying to shine a light on some of the issues about costs; order. Further, the term “fire safety failings” is very we have heard all kinds of accounts of different costs for broad and subject to interpretation. There could be the same job, so shining some light on that would be several circumstances where there is a fire safety failure helpful. I think this is an issue that needs to be pushed, but that would not warrant the imposition of a waking I am happy to beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. watch—for example, cases where only a faulty fire door Clause, by leave, withdrawn. or smoke detector needed replacing. In such circumstances, Question proposed, That the Chair do report the Bill swift remedial action can be undertaken, but the wording to the House. makes no distinction between fire safety failures. Aside from the wording, we oppose putting this The Chair: Colleagues, we have done well. If anyone provision in primary legislation in any event. A decision wishes to say anything pleasant about officials at this on the use of waking watch is a matter for the responsible stage, that is the usual course of events. person when considering how to achieve compliance in particular premises. That decision must factor in the Kit Malthouse: Strangely,the officials have not provided circumstances of the premises and other fire protection me with a script of nice things to say about them. First, measures in place. Auditing for compliance is ultimately I am obviously grateful to all Members of the Committee an operational issue, best dealt with by the relevant for the constructive way in which our proceedings have enforcing authority on a case-by-case basis. Specific taken place and to you, Sir Gary, for your benign circumstances will dictate what form of remedial action chairmanship. is necessary. The fire safety order already provides for This is obviously a difficult and complex piece of work, an appropriate enforcement action to be taken. Toimpose and while we see the emanation of it in the clauses and a prescriptive legislative requirement of this type would the various bits of legislation that come before us, a be unhelpful and, worse, potentially inhibit an enforcing whole team of officials at both the Home Office and authority from taking the most appropriate action. MHCLG has been beavering away on this for some We are, however, taking forward work in conjunction time, engaging with various industry groups and often with the NFCC on waking watches; it might reassure with affected residents who are in distress, in as sensitive Members if I outlined it briefly. First, the NFCC is and proportionate a way as possible. I know the Committee updating its guidance on waking watches. Once that express their appreciation for all that work as well. guidance is available, we will ask fire protection boards I hope, as we move into the next phase of this very to advise fire and rescue services on how best to ensure important journey and this enormous reform to the system, the guidance is implemented on the ground by responsible we can continue with not only that very forensic work persons.That will include looking into other measures, such that officials have done to put us in this position, but the as installing building-wide fire alarm systems to reduce collegiate and co-operative political atmosphere. As I the dependency on waking watches wherever possible. say, this is a situation that, unfortunately, has arisen over We are also looking to publish data on the costs of a number of decades, under Governments of all colours, waking watches. That will ensure transparency on the and it behoves us all as a political class to put it right. range of costs, so that comparisons can be clearly made. Sarah Jones: I will be brief; my hon. Friend the Our aim is to help reduce the over-reliance on waking Member for Canterbury has put her jacket on, so I watch and, where it is necessary, reduce costs. know it is time. I thank the officials who have helped me Furthermore, as Committee members may be aware, to find my way through this, not least when the House we are already working with the NFCC and fire and adjourned at 5.30 pm on Monday instead of 10.30 pm rescue services to undertake a building risk review as normal, since that was the deadline by which we had programme on all high-rise residential buildings of 18 metres to table amendments. There was a particular pickle at and above in England, which will ensure that all such that moment, but the officials were incredibly helpful. buildings are inspected or reviewed by the fire service by Thank you, Sir Gary, for your chairmanship. the end of next year. It should give residents in high-rise I will finish by saying again that we welcome this blocks greater assurance that fire risks have been identified piece of legislation. We wish things had gone a lot and action taken to address them, reducing the need for further and faster. There is a lot more to be done, and waking watches and other interim measures. we are very hungry to see it done and happy to help the Essentially, we find ourselves in the same argument Government in any way we can to get it done. We all that my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood keep top of mind the people who lost their lives in the and Pinner has raised on a number of occasions: by Grenfell Tower fire. That is what we are here for, and we being prescriptive, we create a situation where anomalies must therefore act as quickly and as well as we can. may occur and lacunae open up in the fire safety framework, of which this foundational Bill is meant to The Chair: Thank you very much. I know the whole be the keystone—or whatever firm word we want to Committee will endorse those remarks. I also thank use—for the future. For that reason, we hope that this Yohanna for her excellent clerking of the proceedings. new clause will also be withdrawn. Question put and agreed to. Bill accordingly to be reported, without amendment. Sarah Jones: Heaven forbid that lacunae should open up! I immediately withdraw the new clause. I completely 4.16 pm understand the point about this being a matter for the Committee rose. 67 Public Bill Committee 25 JUNE 2020 Fire Safety Bill 68

Written evidence reported to the House FSB04 National Fire Chiefs Council (NFCC) FSB01 Fire Brigades Union FSB05 British Property Federation FSB02 Institution of Engineering and Technology (‘IET’) FSB06 Greater Manchester Fire and Rescue Service FSB03 Fire Sector Federation FSB07 National Housing Federation